Template talk:EnhancementsTOC

Radiant Servant
I was the one that originally changed the ToC to use "Healing Domain". I did this because that's what was in the game when I was updating the Radiant Servant enhancements page. If the name at the bottom of the tree had been "Radiant Servant", I would not have made the change. I do see that it is back to "Radiant Servant" in the game. I'm scratching my head as to when that happened though. Finally, it is Servant, not Savant. Thearcher 16:58, August 23, 2013 (EST)

Racial Enhancements
I'd like to see the racial enhancements squeezed down into 3 lines total, with the category headers moved from their own lines to the left most column in each row. See a proof of concept in my Dashboard to see if you like it and the code I used. EllisDee37 15:36, April 24, 2017
 * I agree wholeheartedly. -- Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:44, April 24, 2017 (EDT)
 * ✅ and history merged in. ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 23:04, April 24, 2017 (EDT)

Can we just merge Free/Premium classes into a category?
I often find myself that It's confusing me to notice where a class is. and to be fair, Artificer should be in Premium class as Favored Soul is there. -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST) (This signature has been changed to notice people who the non-login user was.)
 * This has been a topic as of late as to what is and what isn't f2p/premium. I've locked all of the templates and created sandboxes so everyone can set up their own version of what it should look like and then we can have a discussion here and pick the best for the wiki.  I'll create my own sandbox as well (and link to it through one of the testcases pages).  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:45, February 9, 2020 (EST)
 * Good call. There are 2 things going on, and both are important to consider. One is the simple question "What is 'free'?" Traditionally on this Wiki, if you can earn the Class (or Race/Tree/etc.) via Favor, then it's "Free" (e.g. Drow). Agreed, if you have to grind points to buy 4 specific quest packs and then run those to earn Falconry, and can't do that until Epic levels... that starts to feel less "Free" - but whatever. However, the other consideration, and at least as important, is presentation - and a [2x5] layout is MUCH cleaner than a [1x4 + 1x6], which gets cluttered and is visually confusing. So - do we risk confusion on the definition, or guarantee confusion on the layout? Myself, I vote the former - a clean presentation is preferable imo.
 * However, with the upcoming introduction of Alchemist, we have to accept that every other class added will create an odd numbered layout. So, perhaps the best solution is to go with something similar to {T:Class}, and just keep them alphabetical and color code them, which solves the problem going forward as well. Perhaps in 3 colors, for (truly) Free, Favor-based, and Purchased-only. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:29, February 9, 2020 (EST)
 * Followup: Okay, this (User:C-Hound/SandBox) is my first effort, based on my suggestion above - and, frankly, I do not love it. It desperately needs a dark horizontal line above the "Class" row to break the info up visually, and even then it's still ugly and then some. And that raises the question... do we even need to break these down into Free/Favor/Pay? Does it achieve anything? Isn't a simple "alphabetical" a reasonable approach here? If a reader is interested in class enhancements, that's all they need to know - info about the Class itself is a separate topic from "Enhancements", neh? All this needs (besides a single light/dark color scheme) is strong borders between the (double) rows of Class/Enhancement, and I think it'd be fine. Keep the racial enhancement organized as-is (I think that helps), and ignore the rest for classes. Anyway, that was all "1 edit" - I'll give this suggestion a swing after I grab a bite. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 01:33, February 10, 2020 (EST)

I agree with alphabetical order, color coding for free/unlockable/purchased, and popups for details. Therefore, I like C-Hound's draft. But I am also a fan of flexible design. Imho it's nice when the content adapts to the size of the screen. What if we used something like this quick mockup? Colors are just randomly selected, but what do you think about the general idea?-- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:54, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * What I care is 1) Ease of use 2) Accuracy 3) Consistency. C-Hound mentions above "What is free"? The simplest answer to that is: "Whatever is not premium". This means that if someone can spend DDO Points to get an adventure pack, a class, a race, a hot chocolate, an airship amenity then those things are premium and should be noted as such. The only exception to that simple rule are items that are also readily available for purchase with platinum such as wands and potions. Of course, classifying something as premium does not mean "Free players can't get it". Free players can get everything from the DDO Store given enough grind. Right now the wiki is filled with inconsistencies on that point. About ease of use: My proposal was this: https://ddowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:EnhancementsTOC/class&oldid=433684 9 free classes, 6 premium classes divided by 3 columns. When a new premium class comes in, it'll be 7 classes which means can't divide them equally. We'll have to do a 4 and 3 split; get over it. Cru's idea would solve this but I do not like it because it doesn't feel like a TOC (TABLE of contents), it makes it even harder to find the class you're looking for (because your eyes can't take a quick glance over fixed intervals) and if we organized them based on free/premium they would look even worse. I see what people are saying about readability from small screens like phones, but this wiki is not equiped to handle small screens. Furthermore, the presentation of organized numbers and information is inherent in a game such as DDO so we can't pretend that you can easily use the wiki from your phone. Seeing tables with info is what a large portion of players come to ddowiki for and those tables contain too much to fit in a small screen. Personally, when I use the wiki from my phone, I see the same size screen I see from my desktop. I zoom in and drag the page around (up/down/left/right) to read. That's the best course of action from my point of view: Make the wiki have a minimum resolution enough to view complex tables and adjust everything to work with that. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 08:04, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * The simplest answer to "what is free?" is whatever doesn't cost money. If you can earn it through favor, then it's free.  If you have to spend money/DDO Points to get the thing, then it's not free.  I think the best option is to add a row for Favor Earned and Artificer, Favored Soul, and any further earnable classes can go there. As far as Cru's mock-up goes, it's not symmetrical and hard to find at a quick glance what I'm looking for.  I'll create a mock-up of my own in the next week or two (February vacation for one of my kids this week and the other next week will make my free time short).  C-hound's mockup doesn't look too bad, a few color adjustments possibly.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 09:38, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * DDO Points can be earned by favor and everything in the DDO Store can be earned with DDO Points. Therefore, your definition would mean that everything is free and the only premium things are exclusive stuff from DDO Market bundles. However, that is not a helpful distinction. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 17:37, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * What about the case where you can technically unlock it with favor but there isn't enough free favor in the game to unlock it? As far as I know, there isn't enough Cannith favor to unlock Artificer without first spending DDO Points or buying VIP to unlock the packs. I'm of the opinion that Artificer should be listed under Premium for this reason. But maybe we shouldn't be separating based of free and premium but instead simply by unlock method: Starter classes (green), VIP unlocked (yellow), and favor or store unlocked only (orange). &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:34, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * Technically, You can try 21 challanges to get 6 favor each(total 126) with free Cannith challange token everyday and a free quest of 27 favor(Brothers of the forge) then you can hit 153 favor, Even though It doesn't look super realistic in my thought... -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST)
 * Should we really need to separate Free and Non-free? I know there will be a few people who might want to know which class is totally free in Enhancement page, but the current method of categorising even loses the primary consistency of Alphabetical order. To find Artificer, You should identify if It is Free or Premium at first, then You should follow alphabetical order in Premium category. Personally, My flow goes only Alphabetical order, that's it, rather than goes Free/Non-free - Alphabetical order in 2 steps. How about Monk? It's definitely Premium, but You should think It's Premium first then alphabetical order later. Therefore, C-Hound's draft seems simply fine to notice where a class is. (and I personally like Eldritch Knight is set below Sorcerer's Elemental Savants in his draft. It was a bit annoying. lol)-- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST)
 * @ All: Upon reflection, it appears clear that whether a Class is "free" or "(not) technically free" or "Premium" or whatever has nothing to do with "Enhancements" - they are unrelated terms that were conveniently borrowed to provide a purely coincidental way of organizing this TOC that made some sense once upon a time. Let's just lose that distraction, because, for this topic, and as others have pointed out, it achieves nothing here in the current game format. "Alphabetical" works fine - always has, always will going forward. @ Shoe' - "symmetrical" is a target goal, but not a dealbreaker. The 5 trees under Sorcerer will fight symmetry no matter what, and every other class added in the future will break a current solution. It is what it is - if we can, great, but it's only one of many considerations. @ all - No necessity to have any color(s) (except for aesthetics), just need each {Class + Enhancements} to be clearly boxed together for ease of scanning (which my earlier did not achieve). For that, I do like Cru's Mock-up - this is my new spin off that format. (& see notes there.) &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 17:31, February 12, 2020 (EST)
 * @ all: Draft # 4 is up, and I believe it's a keeper, or close (enough) to. Strictly alphabetical, and dispensing with labels, which imo are adequately implied. This discussion has slowed significantly, so I'll give it a week, and if no objections/suggestions/alternatives, I'll implement it. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:08, February 19, 2020 (EST)
 * oooh that actually looks great! &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:59, February 19, 2020 (EST)
 * For overall, I like it except for the colour. Especially, Green makes my eyes easily tired - It's too closer to the primary colour. Though the table itself is fine. -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 07:29, February 20, 2020 (EST)
 * The darker green was to create contrast for the diff cells, for visual separation, but I toggled a darker border color (grey) and went w/ a lighter green. I could now lighten all the colors for better contrast w/ the default blue(ish) text. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 04:29, February 22, 2020 (EST)


 * I personally like User:C-Hound/SandBox the best of the four, let's throw some darker borders in and go with that. User:C-Hound/SandBox lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance.  User:C-Hound/SandBox lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance and is asymmetrical, which is a deal breaker.  User:C-Hound/SandBox is very "1990s" blocky and basic, lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance.  &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:58, February 26, 2020 (EST)
 * As is, those colors are ugly imo - but that's easily solvable. And the issue of Free/Earnable/Premium is likewise solvable. The real problem is that, while I agree with "...let's throw some darker borders in and go with that", with that table format, the borders surround each cell, each Class and each Enhancement cell, not each dark+light pair of cells that together make one related entry. So that becomes really ugly and unreadable, as the eye confuses the classes both above and below. So it would take someone's code-fu that's better than mine. :/ At a miminum, vertical lines are not needed so much (to distinguish columns) as horizontal ones between rows of those Class+Enhancement pairs. :/ &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:21, February 26, 2020 (EST)
 * Darker border added for each pair - feel free to change the colors for each type -- I'm thinking that once it's sorted out what we want, I'll move the inline css to Common.css as classes to clean up the code before moving it to the live template. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 15:26, February 26, 2020 (EST)

So, When will happen to see a new change? -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:59, April 4, 2020 (EDT)
 * @ Targal - When it's ready, no sooner than that. @ All - we're talking about User:C-Hound/SandBox, and, yes, imo those borders give each class/enhancement pair the distinction needed. I like it. GJ, this has been on my mind. Gave Universal trees a little more elbow room. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 00:01, April 5, 2020 (EDT)
 * I can make the changes on DDOwiki Talk this week. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 22:06, April 6, 2020 (EDT)
 * classes to MediaWiki:Common.css. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:32, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * @C-Hound, I'm down with that version. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 06:32, April 7, 2020 (EDT)