Category talk:Armor

Can this category be an exception to the naming convention? 'Armors' doesn't sound grammatically correct. Dedridd 10:49, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Why isn't that grammatically correct? I am not a native English speaker, but it looks ok to me -- Tihocan 12:45, February 16, 2006 (PST)

I was thinking that 'armor' was like 'deer' and doesn't change for plural. I have no proof of that though, and could very well be mistaken. I was just going by how it sounded. Dedridd 12:57, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Google lists lots of armors ;) -- Tihocan 12:59, February 16, 2006 (PST)

No they list multiple suits of armor. I agree it looks OK but it just seems wrong. Probably because you could own multiple suits of armor but also own multiple weapons. Usually that armor is not plural, instead the suit of armor is plural. Same thing with stuffs, you can talk about foodstuffs, but you dont have many stuffs you have a bunch of stuff. -- koolkat 13:01, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Heh, and I was just going to say - In the armory, do they store armor? Or do they store armors? The latter just doesn't sound right. Ok, regardless, we've proven that there's not a clear-cut answer to this. So do redirects work on categories? We could have both in the system if so, and then it'd work for whichever way people searched for it or linked to it. Dedridd 13:04, February 16, 2006 (PST)

I dont know how to link them possibly redirect armors to category armor for a search somehow. I came up with another oddity, what about fur coats. You can have multiple fur coats, and likewise multiple furs, but not multiple furs coats. (except wouldnt a fur coat be made of multiple furs especially if it came from a small animal? English is funny sometimes -- koolkat 13:06, February 16, 2006 (PST)

I meant create a Category:Armor and a Category:Armors, and redirect one of them to the other. Unfortunately, I bet this breaks because if someone puts a Category:Armors tag on the page of a special magical armor, it wouldn't automatically be put in the Category:Armor category. Unless Category:Armors is also part of the Category:Armor category? I haven't figured out parent and child categories yet, so I can't say if it'd work or not. And while 'Armors' may not sound right, it's consistent with all our other categories, so we should probably use it anyways. Dedridd 13:17, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Periodically check the :Category:Armors page for pages put into it, then edit them and move them into the category:armor category. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.) 17:22, February 16, 2006 (PST)

Simple answer to all of this: english is f***ed up. Simple truth. gallahe, though, is nobody here native english? Wow I feel alone. Anyway, Category:Armor is the correct name, nobody says armors ROFL. Although the fact there there are 8 posts on it on this page, I guess a redirect would be in order because there must really be that much incomprehension among you 'foreigners' lol. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.) 17:22, February 16, 2006 (PST)

There's only one of us here who thought 'armors' was correct. ;b Which is why I asked if I could go against the naming standard in the first place. Sorry, Tihocan, I think you're out-voted. Since you're admin though, you could decree that a redirect is necessary. I won't bother adding it otherwise. And my alias may be celtic, but I'm a native english speaker. :) Dedridd 18:29, February 16, 2006 (PST)

I only said it looked ok to me. If this is grammatically incorrect, use Armor instead -- Tihocan 12:06, February 17, 2006 (PST)

Magic Armor

I don't think we should mix up basic armor and magic armor. We already have tables for basic weapons, armors and shields. IMO it would be good to have categories for "Magic armor", "Magic shields" and "Magic weapons". Maybe they can be sorted by the minimum required level. Currently I think only "named" items should get an entry. For random generated items a table would be good. We already started this with the Armor Enhancements site, but it's not really structured so far.--Ziu 04:38, March 3, 2006 (EST)

There was a discussion about what should get entered archived here that you might have missed. It was in reference to a random magic armor called something like '+1 Half Plate of Lightning Resistance,' and the outcome (at the very bottom) agreed with your thoughts - only uniquely named magic armor and weapons should get entered; randomly generated stuff will just have a page that lists the possible random magic attributes (should this go on the FAQ page?). However, I think that shortly the uniquely-named magic armor entries will greatly outnumber the basic armor entries - Turbine will always be adding magic items, but I bet they add very few (if any) basic armors. And by the nature of the names themselves, I think it's very easy to tell basic and magic armor apart. I'm also of the opinion that having the basic armor in the same category as the magic stuff is beneficial, as it allows a user to easily compare the basic version to one of the uniquely named ones to see what's better about it. So my gut reaction is that we don't need categories for magic versions of armor and weapons. I'm second-guessing that, however, and wondering if some additional subcategories (to denote the smaller group) might be good. Although I can't really think of any benefits and I'm cringing at the thought of how to work those additional categories into the template, so I'm leaning more towards my initial reaction. Dedridd 10:25, March 3, 2006 (EST)

I would tend to agree with Dedridd. Though, at the same time, it can be interesting for newbies to easily see what are the basic armor types. I guess it all depends on how much extra work it would require to add more subcategories. Tihocan 10:51, March 3, 2006 (EST)

I know I would like to see what combinations have been found and from what quest levels as I am guessing there is a possible trend, but I think it would be better suited to be in the quests section than in the armor section. I'm rolling around a quest template in my head, expect it soon. -- koolkat 10:53, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Well, it'd be good to have a list of magic armor without needing to browse through all quests. Tihocan 11:07, March 3, 2006 (EST)

The category pages for the weapons and armor(such as Category:Martial weapons) have a link at the top to the base items of that type for exactly that reason, Tihocan (in reference to your comment it can be interesting for newbies to easily see what are the basic armor types). Koolcat, I think listing what comes from which quests as rewards could be beneficial if it's a unique item that's guaranteed every time (and yes, it should have it's own page if it's unique), but aren't most of the rewards random basic and/or magic items in this game (I'm only level 2, so it could be diff at higher levels)? I agree there's got to be a trend, and we'll probably find out that each magical suffix/prefix has some sort of minimum level (my diablo2 influence is coming out here) that's also factored into how many times you've done the quest already. But do the 'magic categories' help out with this somehow? If so, you lost me. Dedridd 11:13, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Oh, yes, I hadn't noticed these links. Actually, it's a bit confusing, because the links to light, medium and heavy armor at the top are not the same as the subcategories that come just below. Maybe it could be explained that these links are for the basic standard equipment, while the categorized stuff also lists special/magic equipment. Tihocan 12:35, March 3, 2006 (EST)

I think it would possibly help elucidate the loot tables if we listed items somehow by quest reward. I mean on a second level quest you arent going to find a +3 flaming longsword, even though it is a possible item in the game. Personally I would like to see all items recieved from level 1 quests, level 2 quests and so on but I cant come up with a good way of organizing it into a easily quantifiable way. Maybe a noinclude tag and listing the quests by levels and having the rewards present, but that would still allow duplicates. Also I would like to know if you can have mutiple enhancements, like a +2 flaming giantbane sword. I dont know how you could go about doing this, but I think you see what I am hinting at with this comment. I would like to know what possibilities of weapons are out there and what level quests I should be going on to try and get those weapons. Check out what I did with the low road and make comments there as well. -- koolkat 13:06, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Time to split to a new section....see below for more on the light, medium, and heavy armor pages. Dedridd 12:58, March 3, 2006 (EST)

In reference to koolkat's topic of loot possibilities from quests - I'm betting you might find that the loot possible for quests is tied to quest level, length, difficulty, and times repeated, not the specific quest itself. Otherwise, they'd have to itemize each and every quest by hand, which seems like a chore. You have a good point though, in that it'd be interesting to see what's possible to get from where and in what combinations, and that could be very valuable information to list on the armor and weapon enhancements page. You could create a task page like Tihocan has going with the DDO numbers project (and link to it on the How can I help? page) where you can explain that you'd like people to list a quest name, level, length and the loot from it. Heck, even spell out whether you want only quest rewards, random chest contents, or both, etc, etc. Dedridd 14:16, March 3, 2006 (EST)

You're right Dedridd, I missed the "halfplate+1" discussion ;-). Still I think there should be a seperation between basic items and special (magical) items. When a player is new to the game it's probably better to offer a simple list. An experienced player probably isn't interested to see the stats of basic items in the list. I proposed the separation, because it is handled this way in every DnD sourcebook. IMO the official material is structured very good and all pen & paper players are used to this system. Of course it's not too hard to distinguish between basic and magic items even if they are in one list but I don't see the benefit. When I play a level 6 paladin for example I'm only interested in armor which is above average. I don't want to click every single heavy armor that exists in the game. That's why I proposed to add some structure to the list. One option is to sort armor/weapons by their market value or simply make subs for minor magical items, medium magical items and greater magical items. So far this isn't an issue but think a few years ahead. Once we have several hundred magic items the work needed to add some structure would be several times more. After all this is just a well-meant advice, I don't want to force this point.--Ziu 14:20, March 3, 2006 (EST)

In your example of a level 6 paladin, you'd be looking for level 6, 5, and 4 items mostly likely. There are categories for that in the templates based on the min level required for using a magical weapon or armor piece (examples, :Category:Itemminlevel_1 and :Category:Itemminlevel_2 ). I know Peerless has a request in for a more robust search system for the wiki such that you could combine things when searching, like 'level 6 and slashing'. Also, see the discussion below, the outcome of which is that I'm going to redo the armor and weapon category pages to look like this one that clearly shows the table of basic items, and then lists everything below.

Armor sub-categories

Voting time. I've updated the armor type pages (see light armor, for example) with some additional and more specific links to clarify things. However, something I've kicked around is whether I should just get rid of the light armor page and move the table from there to the top of the Category:Light armor page, with all the items belonging to the category listed below. What do you think? I modified the Category:Medium armor page as an example, but I will undo it if it's not very well liked (or I'll kill off the medium armor page if it is). The armor tables aren't too big so I think it would work, but for larger tables like the Category:Martial weapons page I'm not sure if I like the idea of the categorized item list being hidden off the bottom of the page. What does everyone think? Dedridd 12:58, March 3, 2006 (EST)

To me it seems the best solution. I'm not really bothered by the larger list of martial weapons, I believe it's better to have all the stuff in a single page. Tihocan 13:02, March 3, 2006 (EST)

We could just pull it in from the respective pages also and leave the medium armor page there as well because the classes link to there. -- koolkat 13:08, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Including page content from another page is neat, but in this case to avoid confusing people by having two pages that are almost the same except for the list of items at the bottom, I'd rather consolidate the pages, redirect the old one, and update all the links manually (since redirecting to a category seems to be broken for now). I will take the time to find and fix all the links just to make it all clean, if having it all in one page is the best. Dedridd 13:41, March 3, 2006 (EST)

I don't know how I missed all this, but I did - and I just tried to read through it, but I have 13 more alerts overnight, and I have to check them all before breakfast. Can somebody summarize what the argument here was, and the final decision? I don't care as much about the stuff about the users, but I do want to know how you decided to categorize things.... (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.) 14:53, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Ok. Original question: should we create new categories for magic armor and non-magic (or basic) armor? Outcome: just stick with the existing Category:Armor category for now, but instead of having a summary page with a table of basic items in addition to a category page showing a list of items in that category, move the basic item table to the top of the category page. Example: we had Light armor and Category:Light armor, but the two will be combined into something like this Category:Medium armor and all links double-checked to make sure they work. Note that this isn't the same discussion as that massive one about 2D and 3D categorization layout, Peerless, in case that's what you were referring to about 'how we decided to categorize things.' None of the categorization of armor or weapons has changed because of this yet. Dedridd 15:47, March 3, 2006 (EST)

Woot, got it, thanks! (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.) 16:01, March 3, 2006 (EST)