Materials
Mon, 08/10/2015 - 12:33
Okay, looking at the elephant in the room. Some of us are working on missions, while others feel that updating materials is more pressing. They sort of tie together through exploration.
What is absolutely necessary: update the locations/monsters that materials drop from. There was a significant change to material drops with release 2013-07-30 (battle sprites), namely:
2 star materials and higher now only drop from a specific monster family.
The wiki is almost entirely out of date regarding this change.
Other more pressing issues:
General wiki format. "Obtained From" needs to be changed to "Acquisition" (a long, long term project we've gradually been making consistent. In the past, we have seen "Vendors" and "Crafting" and all sorts of sillyness). The acquisition section needs to be fully updated with monster family, tiers, Brinks, and other misc methods, whenever appropriate. We might also add farming tips later to this section (such as "players typically farm mission X for this material), but that is less pressing and not as important as it is for other items such as rarities.
Descriptions need to be italic.
EDIT: "need". I suppose not. Most (I think all except materials and locations?) descriptions around the wiki are in italics, and consistency is best. I personally like them italic. I suppose it's not exactly conventional/wiki MoS. Indeed, a topic for much later.
"See Also" content needs to be replaced with the {{material see also}} template.
See: This Skeleton Page for easy copypasting.
Optional issue:
How to organize the usage section. I have whipped up a template that should be used for materials that have a ton of use in various recipes. It should be flexible for most screen sizes. Do not use this template for items that are only used in 1-2 things, or nothing, like the BoDR or Punkin Sprout. Copy/paste into it for now (if we agree on the format) - we can decide to keep it alphabetized, or list each item type by star level later.
Template: here
We need feedback. Try to keep it big picture. Small stuff like "the icon in the infobox should be smaller" is fine, but doesn't help us make the big pushes we need to.
Compare:
Most recent version of Beast Scale to any other material page, or the beast scale page history, to see changes.
Mon, 08/10/2015 - 13:36
#2
much better
The new Beast Scale page looks much better than the 2015 May 22 version. As far as the big picture goes, you should push such changes wiki-wide.
I don't know why descriptions should be in italics, but there is a precedent, and that's the sort of tiny thing we can tweak later anyway. Cheers.
Mon, 08/10/2015 - 17:25
#3
I like it
The Beast Scale page looks good. As for the Italics i think it should remain that way since it's a quoted text from the actual description. Kinda new here but let me know how i can help out with this, or where to start.
Mon, 08/10/2015 - 18:07
#4
:o
since it's a quoted text from the actual description
Oh yes, that's probably why they did it that way. It is a quote - and it's very easy to forget that, when basically most of the wiki is essentially quoting the game xD
To start, assuming you've got an account sorted out, try out some coding in the Sandbox. The preview button is your friend. Most templates have documentation, if they don't, check out what links to them, observe the page code, and try to replicate the behavior in the sandbox. There's only a few very branched+integrated templates we use (alchemy tree is one of them), so most should be self-contained with parameter entries that are not typos.
After that, see things to do and see if you can apply your skills. We need grunt work, image cropping/good quality uploaders, coders, data checkers/collectors, and someone to run around in a chromalisk suit getting donuts. Recent changes is usually a good indicator of projects we could use help on, but be careful to not create edit conflicts. These happen when two or more editors save changes to a page that two or more editors are working on, so somebody's progress is lost unless they copy/paste. It's usually not a problem for us, since the wiki is a big place and there's not many volunteers. There's lots of little things like that.
Altmetal will likely be doing much of the material changes, but more pairs of eyes validating the acquisition is very much appreciated.
Mon, 08/10/2015 - 18:48
#5
Will take a look
Yes, i already have the account set up. As i was telling another editor, i can actually remake most icon images in vectors since i've been working with Adobe Illustrator for years, which would allow to have them in any quality you want them to be and it doesnt really take me long, though it depends on the complexity of the icon (talking about icons like recipes, alchemy machines, remove accessory ticket, etc). But i feel that's not really a topic of priority.
As for the donuts, i can get a Chromalisk suit, but i cant promise the donuts reaching their destination safely.
Tue, 08/11/2015 - 06:43
#6
I think it's good!
The beast scale page looks amazing, just like the others who are also formatted this way. Although it can be a hazard to fill it in (personal, i honestly have no clue if its annoying or not to do) I think it is worth it and very useful as well.
Tue, 08/11/2015 - 17:38
#7
:)
Okay, it seems we have settled on a format. Now we need data.
Does anyone know if the guild Lancer Knightz, or another guild/user, has started data collection after the BS release? It's best to cross reference this sort of data. We'll still be doing preliminary surveys of our own, and might have a public sheet available for live data entry soon, especially if the data we are collecting is already recorded to some extent somewhere.
What we are looking for:
monster genus (like chromalisk) (species status...like fire=salamander), depth, location (some locations are weird, we know this), and the material in question, of course, as it's found in relation to these other factors.
Data should be collected on elite difficulty. This just lets the "best" drops of the possible pool happen more often, allowing faster data collection for the higher rated mats. As far as I can tell. Correct me if I am wrong.
We will eventually discern the specificity of certain materials in relation to depth. We all know that weird things can happen, like eternal orbs in the RJP. Data averages will be used on wiki. We will determine if we want to say tier, depth, or stratum. I am leaning toward depth.
eventually we should be able to say "this mat comes from monster fam x, and/or monster status x in (depth?) x and below"
Questions that have been brought up:
-mention treasure box/prize wheel as methods of acquisition? I say no, these are not reliable per individual page. They should be mentioned on the master Material page, of course. To me, this is like saying "can be bought on AH if users have posted it" - sort of implicit. Monsters are just a little more complex than these generalized sources.
Tue, 08/11/2015 - 21:20
#8
Lancer Knightz
One of the reasons I like Lancer Knightz is that they are very explicit about their data procedures. Their mission procedure is here:
http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Lancer_Knightz_(Guild)/Missions
It doesn't mention materials. None of their analyses mention materials. So I doubt that you can count on them for any material data.
Wed, 08/12/2015 - 10:41
#9
Well Then
We have set up a data entry in google docs. To prevent possible sabotage (I'd love to think everyone is great and nobody would make a mess of this, and that nobody would really seek to do so, but I have been VERY unpleasantly surprised in the past), you'll have to contact Puurrfect or me for the link. My IGN is Novaster. If this proves too difficult, we'll just make backups frequently and open up the file to everyone, linking to it here.
Much of the data collected will be redundant, proving what we already know/what the patch notes said. Perhaps we will find anomalies worth mentioning along the way.
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 09:45
#10
Monstahs want tree fiddy
Updating materials involves updating monster drops on monster pages as well. This warrants a few tweaks. Please give feedback on This version of the sandbox. Pick option 1,2, or 3, and then provide reasons why, and any "big picture" improvements you can think of. Yes, we are aware of the "empty" data bits such as FAMILY and SWITCH. Those are little things. Big picture would be "include this at all?"
General monster improvements: ToC sections per monster "species" within the "genus" for easier editing, instead of hidden headers, and redirects so Category:Monsters can actually be populated with species. We will maintain direct #linking instead of through redirects for easier navigation in certain browsers (going "back" through a general redirect causes the user to go to the top of the directed-to page, so they have to click the back button twice, as monster links around various exploration/mission pages are now, the direct linking avoids this issue and it will stay that way).
Wheel launcher - I have talked with User: Onox about this thing. I think it's an exploration entity/trap, not a monster. Thoughts?
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 10:58
#11
Option 1
I like Option 1 the best, but maybe the Locations could also be in a show/hide, so that a single monster doesn't take up all of the vertical space on my screen?
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 11:56
#12
Yeah, w/ the locations being
Yeah, w/ the locations being hidden, the page wouldn't be long.
I like the abilities listed by tier, though.
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 12:15
#13
hmmm
We can show/hide arrange things in cells all we like :). I've added an "option 4" just for quick visual comparison.
My concern right now is the page width. Having monster visuals and information in the same row is not friendly for smaller screens. I have it so the third option expands to fill the screen width without crunching until it gets very narrow. Larger screens will have a lot of "empty dark blue space" in the monster visual row, while smaller screens will not. Crunching seems to be a worse problem than some empty space - empty space is like a frame. Some people love framing pictures on walls, others don't. For option 3, it's an aesthetic preference issue instead of a functional readability issue.
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 12:27
#14
I like option 1 best.
Sat, 08/15/2015 - 17:28
#15
Hrufff
Option 5 in the sandbox now. Other options are still there in a large show/hide for comparison, but the page is a bit cluttered and we want new people passing by to see changes and progress a bit easier.
The silkwing example is there for flexibility tests regarding a few things, namely visual display and drop table.
I have chosen "monstrous profile" as the header title because it's reminiscent of a few official News posts, and resolves the redundancy issue with the ToC subsections having the monster name (something we simply must do to make editing these things easier and more organized). We will probably utilize subpage mechanics for abilities and locations to make things even easier and cleaner on the page codes.
We are also working on the master material list overhaul. It involves sorting by star and stratum/monster family with emphasis on acquisition details above the list instead of within. Please do not edit this page because a few of us are actively populating the list. But we could still use feedback on it in general. See it here. Look don't touch. Stop it. Go to your room.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 15:20
#16
You gave the monstah money!?
If nobody has any "big picture" objections/suggestions within the next day or so with Option 5, we'll push through the changes with the monster template.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 17:37
#17
My two cents
Before I get into details, nice work on displaying different options for your 'monstrous profiles', you guys really try hard to make it look nice and logical! :)
From looking at all your options, one thing became clear to me.
If I was in your shoes I would have a very hard time deciding on just one table design for all monsters, since not all monsters have their respective "versions" across different Tiers. If there is one monster with no other versions of itself and another monster with 3 or more versions of itself, then placement of certain sections of the text around those images would be different. Silkwing is a great example here and I'm glad you placed it into your design example.
So, Silkwing is a "single" unique monster, there are no other "versions" of Silkwing, unlike Toxigel which has 3 different looks. In case of Silkwing, the best looking table, imo, would be the Option 5, with a slight change of its Description and Notes to be placed next to the image in the same row, on the right, and all other data in the second row.
Since there is only one image to place, space next to it could be used for the Description and Notes, so this way the image would not move up and down and create unwanted vertical space, and all other data with Loot and the rest could spread down in the second row as much as it needs to, without looking wierd or messing with position of the image. A still image in the table just looks better than when show/hide makes it move around... does it not?
Now for Toxigel it's different, the best looking table would be, imo, the Option 3: first row reserved for images of different verions of the same monster, second row Description only, third row Loot and other data that could spread as much as it needs to. Images, no matter how many there are, have their own row and remain in one place, while data in third row has space to spread.
If the text is going to be placed in show/hide or without, that really is all the same to me. Maybe I'm more keen on having it without show/hide, but still, I'm ok with either way.
If you are forced to pick only one table design for all monsters, regardless of their Tier versions, then I would pick Option 3 again. It would look nice for most monsters.
Good luck with editing!
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 18:31
#18
Iskrica
That's some very solid feedback, thank you. I have a design for "option 6" in mind, and I will post here again when it's in the sandbox. It will combine these ideas into a single solution, and I'd like to see what everyone thinks.
The revamp of the main material page is pretty much done. View it here . Make sure you're viewing the most recent version. Can we think of anything that could be changed about this page before we publish it? An error check would be much appreciated, especially for the lists.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 19:35
#19
The only thing I can think of is...
...The material arsenal icon needs to be updated.
Everything else looks good, though.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 20:09
#20
@Vanaduke-Destroyer
Yes indeed it does need updating :) I have uploaded what I am 99.9% sure is the correct shape, it will take some time to show up properly. We will publish the main material page overhaul within the next 24 hours, unless we find any major issues. Monster template is still being worked on in the main sandbox based on feedback, and individual material pages are slowly being updated as we have time.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 21:32
#21
A little thing with the monster templates
I prefer the title the way it is now.
Any particular reason why you changed it to
MONSTERNAME
{{TemplateMonstrousProfile}}
instead of just
{{TemplateMONSTERNAME}}
?
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 22:00
#22
@Vanaduke-Destroyer
Because of several reasons, a few listed above in previous comments (I mentioned news posts). The templates are not named that way, but I understand your question. It will make more sense on monster pages, in the sandbox, it doesn't make much sense right now. Reasons are as follows:
1) It's a hassle to edit individual monsters. As it is now, you have to edit the entire section and scroll down to find the monster you wish to edit. Subsections will be:
===MONSTERNAME===
{{Template}}
===MONSTERNAME===
{{Template}}
2) The above change is very necessary. But leaving the templates as they are now would mean a repetitive title in both ToC subsection and template header. To fix this, the template header has been changed to "monstrous profile." I have chosen monstrous profile because it is fitting, additionally, a couple news posts use it.
3) It is much easier to navigate redirects to visible anchors. ToC sections are pretty much automatically visible anchors. Hidden headers are nifty, but they shouldn't be used here.
A similar thing occurs with the current mission page format.
Sun, 08/16/2015 - 22:55
#23
Okay
A few of us have looked over the main page stuff, and we've decided to publish. Please double check for errors. Man, this has been needed for so long now... So, note to future forum readers, anything linking to Material/Sandbox is not needed, simply go to the Material page.
Monster template still pending.
Individual material pages are being updated as we have time.
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 12:31
#24
Option 6
How do we all like option 6?
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 12:39
#25
Option 6
Option 6 looks pretty good, despite having drastically different effects for silkwings vs. toxigels.
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 13:41
#26
WEEEEEEE
@Bopp: yes, the blahblah effect is particularly devastating to unprepared knights in the field. At the risk of derailing the thread, can you think of anything else we should add to the mineral page? That scenario room pic certainly needs updating.
Does anyone have a general preference/suggestion as to how to list the abilities? Options are bullets, indents, line breaks with visible lines, etc...
These different abilitylist formats are displayed in examples using option 6, in the abilities section of each monster's profile. The Black Kat and Firo Knight are using the same format, showing the needed flexibility. I am leaning towards this abilitylist format, vs. the toxigel and silkwing abilitylist format. These monsters all otherwise are using the same format in option 6 regarding visuals and other sections.
An alternative is to have each tiers abilities in its own tier labelled cell. Will work on that possibility later.
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 16:25
#27
Option 6
Making each Tier ability have its own cell sounds logical, although all those little cells next to each other might seem too crowded and messy... I'm not sure.
Listing all abilities with bullets is best.
Black Kat / Firo Knight ability list format seems 'cleaner' in a way than the Toxigel and Silkwing one, I prefer it too.
Btw, nice job with the Option 6 table, all sections seem well placed now!
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 16:54
#28
OKAY
After much battling with coding and ending up doing something in a non-elegant manner, check out option 7! Featuring adjustable BULLET LISTS with INVISIBRU CELLS.
It remains flexible for combat entry. We can choose to repeat abilities, or make a note within the table that "each tier retains a more intense version of the previous tier's abilities" to avoid clutter. This will probably end up being the default, but the flexibility is needed for any strange abilities or monsters that might not fit the "norm" in the future. This issue is compared between the combat sections of the Black Kat and Firo Knight. Black Kat, Silkwing, and Toxigel use the "repeated" bullet list per tier format. I am in favor of firo knight, but looking at the specificity of black kat, I also don't mind the repetition.
What would be most clear to a child playing the game? Or a new player in general?
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 17:46
#29
Ooooo!
...not gonna lie, that is one really sexy table.
I can already see boss monsters with this template and instead of Tier1 Tier2 Tier3 there would be Phase1 Phase2 Phase3, with detailed description written below that < hr > like with Firo Knight.
Thumbs up!
It depends on how the player thinks I guess, so both suggestions are fine. He can think that Tier2 has only those 'new' abilities he sees are written, or he can conclude that the ability in Tier2 is an addition to the previous ones.
Mon, 08/17/2015 - 18:55
#30
Hmm
It's looking like the firo knight/black kat layout in Option 6 is easy and the least cluttered, while being the least likely to be misunderstood.
Tue, 08/18/2015 - 13:53
#31
@Progress
Made another forum thread regarding monsters. @Vanaduke-Destroyer: now the template is called MonstrousProfile, instead of Sandbox/Monster #. Hurray!
Continue to talk about materials here - error checks and so on. The "material update" project has launched and there's a lot of work ahead, but yay!
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 13:39
#32
Usage
Within the usage section, items are currently listed alphabetically. We feel this isn't the best option most of the time. I would be in favor of organizing these lists by alchemy path (1* down to 5*, more obvious patterns with lower star mats), as this would encourage the idea of item families and how things work in the game.
We would organize the lists later, for now, implementation is our focus. This gives users time to provide feedback on the "Usage" matter.
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 06:31
#33
All of the material pages
All of the material pages have been redone. /yay
For the time being I'm going over every craftable item's page to check if the materials used in it actually have the recipes on the material pages (so far trinkets, furniture, the 2 sprite pods, the id card, and the shields are done). And once that is done, I'll go over the material pages to check whether they still have redundant recipes or not.
As for the listing, I think listing by alchemy path would be better. Or the very least by stars.
On a related note, what are your guys options about leaving blank lines so that an armor and a helmet from a set would be in the same line? (so like on the http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Trojan_Horseshoe 's page, there would be an empty line under the mad bomber suit, this way the items of the seraphic and valkyre set would be next to each other)
Wed, 08/26/2015 - 08:51
#34
Wooo!
It's been wonderful working with people.
For monsters - I'd say put in the template for drops, but leave the rest of the format alone for now. We can "overhaul" monsters slowly, but their drop tables need to be fixed.
As far as spaces+sets go, you'd have to put them in per individual page and it might not look as good as you want, and would be very difficult to keep consistent for each page depending on the material and whether or not the item is in a set, in junction with whatever underlying order is present (i.e alphabetical, star). We have plenty of set information around the wiki already, it's hard to miss.
I'm most in favor of organizing by alch path, with each alch path ordered alphabetically based on the lowest star item in each path.
Thu, 08/27/2015 - 19:13
#35
So...
How is the monster template coming?
Is the change going to be made any time soon?
-----
For the material pages - Do you think that "related" materials should be put somewhere on the page (e.g. For the Jelly Core, it would say something like "The Brute Core, Rocky Core, and Royal Core are higher star materials dropped from the same monster types and used for similar, higher level items.")?
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 00:34
#36
@Vanaduke-Destroyer
It's a nice thought, but when we start putting "related items" on item pages, it degrades rather rapidly into inconsistency and matters of opinion. It's also extremely annoying to keep updated - we've been working to clear out any oddities of this nature we see, keeping things in categories, if even that.
I think to serve this particular function, all one has to do is go to the page of the monster who drops the item, and compare drops through the tiers, or sort the main material page list by stratum/third column.
Regarding the highly related monster template development and discussion, let's keep the discussion here.
Share your thoughts people. We are waiting for your feedback to begin the work.