PDA

View Full Version : Short List of Questions for Duwis



Borror0
03-06-2009, 09:31 AM
Well, you asked for it. Before I knew of your existance, I created a thread where I offered some suggestions on how I thought I may improve you may Compendium. I suggest that you check it out (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=169668). As for my questions, here is a list of the things that come to mind to start with.

Also, I noticed that you updated some templates. Thanks for that. It should make things a little easier.

1. It seems to me that the initial goals for the wiki version of the Compendium were to improve the content of the Compendium, and to give players the tools to come create new documents and edit the current documents in a more real-time manner. Are these assumptions correct, and if not, what are the goals? If they are, how do you plan to resolve the current conflict that exists between inviting players to be content editors and the limitations such edits difficult?

2. What is your role with regards to the Compendium? Are you acting as just the implimentor in upgrading the current design, as its admiistrator in making sure that any future changes that are needed are put in place, as its architect in guiding its design can strucutre, or as its shepard in maintaining and guiding the community?

3. Currently, the data from the Compendium is pulled directly from the game and thus updates the moment anything is changed. Unfortunately, this has several disadvantages: incorrect descriptions that cannot be changed, enhancemements showing up in the feat category, messy display thanks to feat such as Weapon Focus, etc. What are the advantages of pulling the data directly from the game? With this being the case, would it not be easier to simply update it manually? Also, is there any plan to workaround the shortcomings of this function or even simply discard it?

4. What is the exact purpose the <no edit> tags? Is it to seperate "official" information from "non-official" information, or was it simply a by-product of the data import process? They make it difficult to make meaningful changes. Many page contain incorrect, mislead or incomplete information. Is there any plan to allow us give us more freedom in editing the wiki or is Turbine set on seperating official data from player input data?

5. Was the heavy usage of namespaces a conceptual decision, or was it a by-product of the data import? The current implimentation is both a misuse of the system as well as confusing to users. Will we be able to migrate this to a better system either using categories or tags?

6a. Usually, adding an extenstion is a matter of minutes. The time it took for parsers to be added is to be counted in months, is there any techincal problem with adding extenstions to the Compendiun which explains the long delay and there any extentions currently being evaluated to be added to the Compendium?
6b. FlaggedRev is a great way to balance control with editing freedom. Was there a reason why this was not chosen to be used, and will it be used in the future?

7. The current Compendium lacks meta templates, or any sort of structure for that matters. Is there any plan to build one to ensure a more uniform presentation of the information?

8. Many pages are repeating redundant information. Is it possible to merge these pages together so that they do not clutter their respective category?

9. Are there contractual problems with allowing EU players to edit the Compendium, or is the matter purely technical? I am sure many of them would love to contribute to the project!

10. The pop-up feature you guys have is pretty neat. Is there any way we could gain access to it through the means of a template?

11. The current skin is tiring on the eyes and is also too vertical. Has there been any talk to create a new one?

12. Could it be possible to unprotect the home page?

13. Pages explaining the basic information about the game, such as Armor Class, ability scores, spell points, alignments and so on would be a great addition. One of the major problems of DDO for new players is its steep learnnig curve and such pages would lessen the problem. Is there any plan to add these?

14. Help pages are missing. Would it be possible to create some? (Please, make a better one than Media Wiki's)

15. DDO has a very active community, given it's size. What do you intend to do with regards to fostering a community on the Compendium as exists on the forums? Do you have any ideas to encourage community contribution, editing, and stewardship of the Compendium?

Thanks for the invitation and opportunity,
Borror0

Duwis
03-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Before I knew of your existance

I have always been here.



1. It seems to me that the initial goals for the wiki version of the Compendium were to improve the content of the Compendium, and to give players the tools to come create new documents and edit the current documents in a more real-time manner. Are these assumptions correct, and if not, what are the goals?

That seems fair to say; we want the Compendium to be a reflection of the data in the game with the ability for others to elaborate.



If they are, how do you plan to resolve the current conflict that exists between inviting players to be content editors and the limitations such edits difficult?

Internally, we have discussed ways to foster participation from the community. Take the weighty design around the 'official content' block on articles. We've reduced that significantly on the Lorebook (http://lorebook.lotro.com/index.php/Trait:A_Keen_Response). This is one way we are working and seeing what we can do from a design standpoint to reduce the "whoa, I probably can't edit this" factor.

What do you see as the limitations barring people from being active editors?



2. What is your role with regards to the Compendium? Are you acting as just the implimentor in upgrading the current design, as its admiistrator in making sure that any future changes that are needed are put in place, as its architect in guiding its design can strucutre, or as its shepard in maintaining and guiding the community?

Definitely not a shepherd; I look awful in a bonnet. My role would be best summed up as "developer". I am currently working on improving the import of game data into articles on the Compendium as well as implementing new features like the advanced searches.



3. Currently, the data from the Compendium is pulled directly from the game and thus updates the moment anything is changed. Unfortunately, this has several disadvantages: incorrect descriptions that cannot be changed, enhancemements showing up in the feat category, messy display thanks to feat such as Weapon Focus, etc. What are the advantages of pulling the data directly from the game?

The clear advantage is summed up by a variation of an old catchphrase -- "If it's in the game, it's in the Compendium". We should be importing and displaying exactly what you see in the game. That is our goal with the Compendium.

Having said that, there is plenty of work to do to get us there. We're working on not only adding in new data but also to address some of the issues you've listed above.



With this being the case, would it not be easier to simply update it manually? Also, is there any plan to workaround the shortcomings of this function or even simply discard it?

From one perspective, yes, it would be easier in the short term. Consider though the difficulty of maintaining hundreds, if not thousands of pages, by hand. However, if we do the hard work up front of building the system to parse the game data into articles automagically, game system changes only require tweaks to the system, and it can simply chug along and update the articles in a fraction of the time.



4. What is the exact purpose the <no edit> tags? Is it to seperate "official" information from "non-official" information,

Nose... you are on it...



They make it difficult to make meaningful changes. Many page contain incorrect, mislead or incomplete information. Is there any plan to allow us give us more freedom in editing the wiki or is Turbine set on seperating official data from player input data?

There are no plans currently to eliminate the noedit tags. This is where the community comes in and holds our feet to the fire. If the info. isn't correct between the tag, we need to fix the system so it is. In the meantime, we encourage the community to post images, text, etc. outlining the correct information for others to see.

Here is an example from the Lorebook (http://lorebook.lotro.com/wiki/Item:Gem-encrusted_Scale).



5. Was the heavy usage of namespaces a conceptual decision, or was it a by-product of the data import?

The answer to that is lost to the gelatin of the Cube. This is the system in place when I came aboard. I can hazard guesses as to why based on MediaWiki's explanation of namespaces (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace#Namespace_uses). Can you spot which line might be the one that makes my Drow sense tingle?



The current implimentation is both a misuse of the system as well as confusing to users.

Can you elaborate on this perception of yours?



Will we be able to migrate this to a better system either using categories or tags?

Nothing is off the table; we explore a number of ways to best organize and present the information.



6a. Usually, adding an extenstion is a matter of minutes. The time it took for parsers to be added is to be counted in months, is there any techincal problem with adding extenstions to the Compendiun which explains the long delay

There is no technical issue per se; we certainly want to vet any extensions for security, stability, etc. However, extensions take a back seat to efforts to get the game data correct.



and there any extentions currently being evaluated to be added to the Compendium?

There just might be...



6b. FlaggedRev is a great way to balance control with editing freedom. Was there a reason why this was not chosen to be used, and will it be used in the future?

Again, I can't speak for the past that lies in the Cube's... would you call it a belly? Hmm... Will it be used in the future? The world is full of possibilities. We did add the CategoryTree extension (e.g., Category:Items (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Items)) at some point, so we are not opposed to adding new ones. But again, this is lower priority than getting good, clean data in there.



7. The current Compendium lacks meta templates, or any sort of structure for that matters. Is there any plan to build one to ensure a more uniform presentation of the information?

This is something we bandy back and forth every now and again. We definitely want a consistent look and feel for our official game data. Anything else, we lean towards letting the community itself determine standards and practices. We're not above lending a hand to build templates, but we don't really want to tell the community 'No, any content you add has to be done this specific way'.



8. Many pages are repeating redundant information. Is it possible to merge these pages together so that they do not clutter their respective category?

Examples?



9. Are there contractual problems with allowing EU players to edit the Compendium, or is the matter purely technical? I am sure many of them would love to contribute to the project!

IANAL, but I would love to have them contribute.



10. The pop-up feature you guys have is pretty neat. Is there any way we could gain access to it through the means of a template?

That is a distinct possibility...



11. The current skin is tiring on the eyes and is also too vertical. Has there been any talk to create a new one?

Yes.



12. Could it be possible to unprotect the home page?

13. Pages explaining the basic information about the game, such as Armor Class, ability scores, spell points, alignments and so on would be a great addition. One of the major problems of DDO for new players is its steep learnnig curve and such pages would lessen the problem. Is there any plan to add these?

14. Help pages are missing. Would it be possible to create some? (Please, make a better one than Media Wiki's)

15. DDO has a very active community, given it's size. What do you intend to do with regards to fostering a community on the Compendium as exists on the forums? Do you have any ideas to encourage community contribution, editing, and stewardship of the Compendium?

/wraps self in +5 Cloak of Deflection
/redirects these magic missiles to Tolero and the rest of the OCR team.

Tolero
03-06-2009, 04:35 PM
12. Could it be possible to unprotect the home page?



If there's something you would like to see added to the front page it's easy enough to just contact us and ask us about it (have already had requests come through, such as on the Quests area :) players did very nice work, it wasn't too much trouble to link it up).



13. Pages explaining the basic information about the game, such as Armor Class, ability scores, spell points, alignments and so on would be a great addition. One of the major problems of DDO for new players is its steep learnnig curve and such pages would lessen the problem. Is there any plan to add these?

Great minds think alike ^^



14. Help pages are missing. Would it be possible to create some? (Please, make a better one than Media Wiki's)


Yeah we agree. We're in the process of making some more help pages that are less "WALL OF OVERLY SERIOUS TEXT HITS YOU FOR 4000 DMG SO YOUR EYES GLAZE OVER" and more "learn to wiki, it's fun and easy!!"

It really is fun and easy... Tarrant and I started out as utter wiki n00bs, and have found the learning curve for wiki not very steep. We agree that it helps if you have better, less "dry" instructions :)



15. DDO has a very active community, given it's size. What do you intend to do with regards to fostering a community on the Compendium as exists on the forums? Do you have any ideas to encourage community contribution, editing, and stewardship of the Compendium?


Interest continues to grow, but I think a lot of it relates to everyone wants to feel like they're not the only ones in the Compendium ^^ Duwis has put a ton of work in lately, and I think you'll really start to see that the Compendium is almost a living breathing entity - like the game itself heh - and there's room for everyone's contributions! It will never stop getting changes and updates, from players or us :) Between all of us, we'll be able to help new or less knowledgeable players out!

geoffhanna
03-06-2009, 05:06 PM
I thoroughly love what I am reading here.

Just saying.

You go, Duwis :)

QuantumFX
03-06-2009, 05:23 PM
I have always been here.

That is a distinct possibility...

Yes.

/wraps self in +5 Cloak of Deflection
/redirects these magic missiles to Tolero and the rest of the OCR team.

So… what you’re saying is… you’re a vorlon?

Ustice
03-06-2009, 05:23 PM
From one perspective, yes, it would be easier in the short term. Consider though the difficulty of maintaining hundreds, if not thousands of pages, by hand. However, if we do the hard work up front of building the system to parse the game data into articles automagically, game system changes only require tweaks to the system, and it can simply chug along and update the articles in a fraction of the time.


Any chance that we will be able to do some of that data parsing through an API?

BattleCircle
03-06-2009, 07:17 PM
:( I don't think I like the fact that I get refered to LOTRO lore book..... :(

Duwis
03-06-2009, 07:52 PM
You go, Duwis :)

> n

You go north.

You are in a cave. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

> w

You have been eaten by a grue.

Game Over.

Duwis
03-06-2009, 07:53 PM
So… what you’re saying is… you’re a vorlon?

We are all Kosh.

Duwis
03-06-2009, 07:54 PM
Any chance that we will be able to do some of that data parsing through an API?

There is always a chance of that, but first, we have to make sure we can provide good data.

TreknaQudane
03-06-2009, 08:08 PM
We are all Kosh.

....Who are you?

Nyvn
03-06-2009, 09:01 PM
> n

You go north.

You are in a cave. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

> w

You have been eaten by a grue.

Game Over.


RoK refrence huh? Who knew.

Ustice
03-06-2009, 11:15 PM
There is always a chance of that, but first, we have to make sure we can provide good data.

I don't need GOOD data as long as it is consistent. :) I can filter noise if needed. (yay for regex)

If you would be the guy to talk to about an api I have lots of ideas of what we could use. But that is a bit off-topic here.










But now that you mention it, what sort of chance are we talking about here? ;)

Dark_Helmet
03-06-2009, 11:56 PM
We are all Kosh.

I think you just like to Babylon .. 5 times more than before.

Which is great to get some feedback (keep channeling, Sheridan!)

Borror0
03-07-2009, 01:38 AM
Thanks a lot for the response Duwis.

Here are a few answers to your questions and comments to your answers.

I have always been here.
True but this is your second post on these forums. You were very quiet. ;)

[...] we want the Compendium to be a reflection of the data in the game with the ability for others to elaborate.If that is how you would word your goal for the Compendium, there are two problems with it.

First of all, it means that you value reflection the game's data over valuable information. There are multiple of pages were the description is either incorrect or so generic that it does not give any information worth reading. It's not the fault of the Compendium, as it reflects the data found in the game but it still is a problem for the players.

A good example of incorrect description is Evasion (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Evasion). It description reads "When you make a successful Reflex save to avoid damage, you suffer no damage instead of half damage." While this was once true, it has been changed in Update 4.1 Mark of the Dragon (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Update_4.1), nearly two years ago. For it to be accurate, it would need to mention that the character benefits of this feat if wears light or no armor and is not heavily encumbered. As for a good example of worthless generic description, you can look at Two Handed Fighting (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Two_Handed_Fighting) whose description might just as well be "I exist and make you hit harder. Pick me!" I pointed that out to Codog over year ago (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=1392420#post1392420) and this feat's description still is as uninformative.

As shown by both of the examples I named, it seems updating game data is not that easy, or not a priority. One has been outdated for almost two years now and the other has been mentioned to a developer in October '07. Thus, we are forced to conclude that if the Compendium's primary goal is to be a reflection of the data in the game, it be at the loss of valuable and correct information.

The second problem is that the game does not seem to be coded for its data to be used by the Compendium. Let me elaborate on that.

The worse section for this is the feat section, which is a total mess. All feats lack their prerequisites, which is basic key information. Racial feats, free feats and class feats are not separated from bonus feats (the ones you get at level 1 and every multiple of 3) which may be extremely confusing for the players. Enhancements that are probably coded to act as a feat, like action boosts (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Barbarian_Damage_Boost_V), are added in the wrong category. Redundant feats spam the category, like favored enemies, weapon proficiencies, weapon focuses and weapon specializations.

The list goes on.

While I agree that it would be ideal if you could just have every automated, I am not sure it is a realizable project in the end. Of course, I do not have the technical knowledge to know whether this is true or false but that is how it looks from the user's end.

The Compendium celebrated its two years old yesterday and such obvious problems are still there.

Take the weighty design around the 'official content' block on articles. We've reduced that significantly on the Lorebook (http://lorebook.lotro.com/index.php/Trait:A_Keen_Response).I know. I saw that a while ago and thought it was a significant improvement over the design we have.

What do you see as the limitations barring people from being active editors? Well, there are a few and I think the major one is that if any would want to spend time editing, he would rather spend time editing the DDOwiki over the Compendium because most players agree that the Compendium is "worthless". Both in quantity and quality, the DDOwiki is superior to the Compendium (which is kind of sad because the wiki is kept updated in the spare time of what is the equivalent of three editors) and for this reason most knowledgeable players don't see the point in editing the Compendium.

If I was to list the four most important factors to me, it would be:

Contains very little useful information
Difficult to browse
Little control over the information
Visually unpleasant

I already covered the first point above so let me cover the other three.

When I say it is difficult to browse, it is because those who designed the Compendium fell for the two pitfalls of a wiki: too much information on the same page and assuming categories will the job for you. Class pages (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Ranger) are guilty of the first one. It requires far too much scrolling down to get to the information you want (which is made worse by the lack of a ToC) and the page is too long to load on bad connection/computers.

Meanwhile, most category pages in the Compendium of the second. While listing all members of a category in the way it is currently done requires less work, it is much less enjoyable for the user who usually prefers pages with short descriptions as it allows to browse the category faster and with less clicking.

The other two points sort of go hand in hand.

Having little control over the information, when it is incomplete or incorrect, takes a lot away from the desire to edit and contribute. When one sees he cannot correct the mistake, the question "Why should I bother with this wiki?" then arises. If this, on its own, is not enough to drive the editor away then the look the edited page has after may be enough. The weighty design around the 'official content' makes the 'unofficial content' look silly and gives the feeling to contribute to a low quality product.

Then, visually, the skins used are not appealing (this is of course only my opinion) and may affect someone's decision to contribute, too.

From one perspective, yes, it would be easier in the short term. Consider though the difficulty of maintaining hundreds, if not thousands of pages, by hand. However, if we do the hard work up front of building the system to parse the game data into articles automagically, game system changes only require tweaks to the system, and it can simply chug along and update the articles in a fraction of the time.How long can we should expect "long term" to be?

Can you spot which line might be the one that makes my Drow sense tingle?Not sure I understand your question.

Can you elaborate on this perception of yours?Well, when I say it is a misuse, I mean that it is both an uncommon use of namespace and an overuse of them.

The DDO Compendium is the first wiki I have seen use namespaces this much. Neither of wikia nor wikipedia use namespace in that manner. The same applies for other wiki I have edited or browsed. Since most gaming wikis are on wikia and the only exceptions I know of are EVEwiki (http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page) and WoWwiki (http://www.wowwiki.com/Portal:Main) who both use namespaces in the same way wikia and wikipedia do, it only makes sense to conform. It will make one less thing for new editors to adapt to.

That's the weakest argument, though.

When I say it's an overuse, I mean that it is unnecessary work for the editors and users. Because of your heavy usage of namespaces, an editor will have to type [[Feat:Power Attack|]] instead of [Power Attack]] each time he wants to link to the Power Attack page. Same goes for enhancements, items, etc. It's unnecessary work. Users go through the same trouble when typing the address of a page, even if that is a less significant problem.

Most importantly, it is very confusing to use. It may lead to duplicates (v1 (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Stone_of_Good_Luck) & v2 (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Item:Stone_of_Good_Luck)) or simply lead to complicated questions regarding what goes where, which could easily be avoided. Of course, we could develop rules to navigate with. Once made clear and applied correctly, there should not be much trouble. However, this means more learning for new editors that would otherwise be familiar with wikis.

If it is a by-product of the data-import to avoid possible conflicts in name, maybe there is a workaround the problem?

Examples?There are a few.

Let me just list you Favored Enemies to give you an idea:


Favored Enemy (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy)
Favored Enemy (Aberration) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Aberration%29)
Favored Enemy (Animal) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Animal%29)
Favored Enemy (Chaotic Outsider) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Chaotic_Outsider%29)
Favored Enemy (Construct) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Construct%29)
Favored Enemy (Dragon) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Dragon%29)
Favored Enemy (Dwarf) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Dwarf%29)
Favored Enemy (Elemental) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Elemental%29)
Favored Enemy (Elf) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Elf%29)
Favored Enemy (Evil Outsider) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Evil_Outsider%29)
Favored Enemy (Giant) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Giant%29)
Favored Enemy (Gnoll) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Gnoll%29)
Favored Enemy (Goblinoid) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Goblinoid%29)
Favored Enemy (Halfling) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Halfling%29)
Favored Enemy (Human) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Human%29)
Favored Enemy (Lawful Outsider) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Lawful_Outsider%29)
Favored Enemy (Magical Beast) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Magical_Beast%29)
Favored Enemy (Monstrous Humanoid) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Monstrous_Humanoid%29)
Favored Enemy (Ooze) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Ooze%29)
Favored Enemy (Orc) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Orc%29)
Favored Enemy (Reptilian) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Reptilian%29)
Favored Enemy (Undead) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Undead%29)
Favored Enemy (Vermin) (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy_%28Vermin%29)

Of all of these, only Favored Enemy is worth keeping. Others are simply repeating the same information for nothing.

There are others. Weapon proficiencies, Fighter <weapon> Specializations I & II, Improved Criticals, Power Criticals, Weapon Focuses and Weapon Specializations are the ones I can think of right now but there might be others. They are annoying and useless clutter in category lists.

I think many would love them to be removed. :)

Borror0
03-07-2009, 01:47 AM
Yeah we agree. We're in the process of making some more help pages that are less "WALL OF OVERLY SERIOUS TEXT HITS YOU FOR 4000 DMG SO YOUR EYES GLAZE OVER" and more "learn to wiki, it's fun and easy!!"
LOL! You have no idea how much I loathe MediaWiki's explanations.

Everything I learned about wikis, I have learned it from looking at what others did. MediaWiki's explanations are usually so horrible that I only ended up more confused. I always wished to replace the DDOwiki's help page by something better but never came up with something.

Covering the basis would be plenty (bold, underline, italic, internal and external links, using templates, etc.) to start.

Then, on a separate Help: page, put more advanced stuff. Maybe give tables their own page because they are usually the first "advanced" think one would like to learn.

Tolero
03-07-2009, 07:31 AM
LOL! You have no idea how much I loathe MediaWiki's explanations.

Everything I learned about wikis, I have learned it from looking at what others did. MediaWiki's explanations are usually so horrible that I only ended up more confused. I always wished to replace the DDOwiki's help page by something better but never came up with something.

Covering the basis would be plenty (bold, underline, italic, internal and external links, using templates, etc.) to start.

Then, on a separate Help: page, put more advanced stuff. Maybe give tables their own page because they are usually the first "advanced" think one would like to learn.

Yep /agree, a page with the basics works, advanced stuff comes later. Will see if I can finish up that write up I had this weekend. I feel wiki really is all about learning the basics. Most people just want to know simple formatting to get started so their page doesn't look like plain text.

Yeah for me, I learned wiki by yelling over my shoulder at someone else who knew (you know, like questing hehehe). Once I learned basics I just ran around looking for codes to do what I wanted from then on. Granted I had a head start knowing html, but even without that it's pretty easy.

Borror0
03-07-2009, 07:46 AM
I learned wiki by yelling over my shoulder at someone else who knew
Well, to be fair, I had Elliott but if you knew Elliott you'd know why I said I learned on my own. ;)

Oh, by the way, how much damage does my overly serious text above does?

MrCow
03-07-2009, 08:00 AM
how much damage does my overly serious text above does?

Inflict Serious Words
Necromancy
Level: Clr 3, Wikimaster 2
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One Creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half
Spell Resistance: No

When speaking your serious words upon a creature, you channel wiki energy that deals 3d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +15).

Since internets are powered by wiki energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.



I couldn't resist, I'd say it depends on your level of Wikimaster. :p

Junts
03-07-2009, 08:03 AM
I used to use ddo wiki a lot when I needed to look stuff up; less so now. I rarely use the compendium (primarily for access to spell lists and progressions). That is to say, the compendium/wiki situation isnt a big deal to me either way.


However, this thread is amazing, and I want to compliment Duwis on having a more direct back and forth exchange of ideas between turbine staffer and motivated player than any I've ever seen. I am really impressed, Duwis, in how you have directly addressed some direct criticisms and asked for and acknowledged ideas. It's awesome.

Its clear the ddowiki was once extremely useful when it wasnt extremely out of date, and I think the community would benefit enormously from harnessing its creative forces with the compendium. This game has a lot of active and mature posters; it would benefit a lot from a true wiki and from permitting players to correct errors and handle upkeep - we have enough people to do it, and ones who would, in my opinion, even casually/occaisionally - I think Turbine would be very wise to put significant confidence in the ability of players to explain and keep up to date information, even newbie information, often in ways better than any one other person could. Many players regularly explain these things to new players and new guildies and know already (from lots of repetition) what works best for retention.

The danger for Turbine, it seems to me, is that a player-run wiki setup is more likely to include information which is not always complimentary to the game; eg 'this feat is not good' and 'this enhancement is regarded as poor and rarely taken', which for understandable reasons they may not want in their official compendium, but for equally understandable reasons the players might want them there!

I hope you, Duwis, can take the same 'that means we need to get the data right' approach to those situations and let the game be guided by a 'players would stop saying virtuoso sucked if it stopped sucking' approach to more player access to including information.

Borror0
03-07-2009, 08:11 AM
OMG, MrCow, that is hilarious on so many level! :eek: You should know I am a wiki wizard though. =/

However, this thread is amazing, and I want to compliment Duwis on having a more direct back and forth exchange of ideas between turbine staffer and motivated player than any I've ever seen. I am really impressed, Duwis, in how you have directly addressed some direct criticisms and asked for and acknowledged ideas. It's awesome.
Word.

Jefro
03-07-2009, 11:54 AM
Following wand is missing from the compendium.

Eternal Wand of Charm Monster - (Misc) Charm Monster (CL:1, 2/rest) [Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard only, UMD:6] (Llyndarus's Chest in tempest spine)





The following are not in the game, they have been in the compendium for a long time and are items that are in quest that do not exist or items that were not included once DDO went live. Could it be possible to get a new look of re adding some or if they not going to be added to the game, remove it from the compendium so easier for people to know what items are exactly in the game to search for? Maybe moving the missing items to its own spot in the compendium?


Some of these items the enemy that the item is named after exists, could it just be possible that the devs do not know the chest is broken, like how they did not know that the giant hold adventure area was not dropping relics?
I can help finding the name's chest locations if asked.



Armor:
+2 Mithral Chainrobe, +3 Stonemeld Full Plate, Deathstalker Armor (Leather armor), Kelmar's Vest (Studded Leather), Lesser Stonemeld Armor, Lesser Whirlwind Armor, Nargryl's Frypan (Breastplate)

Docents:
Disc of Bladewarding, Granite Sphere

Robes:
Magi Robe

Shields:
Dark Defender, Deneith Protector, SMACK, Whirling Buckler

Weapons:
Beater (Club), Biter (Long Sword), Chieftan's Morningstar, Darksting, Ikaris' Staff, Kelmar's Betrayal (Dagger), Kelmar's Justice (Warhammer), Plague's Fang (dagger), Wraithbane (Heavy Mace)

Everything Else:
Blizzard's Hide, Bone Amulet, Bracers of Magery (Tempest Spine), Clear Fang, Eye of Fire, Flamefang's Hide, Fortified Gauntlets, Golden Bracer, Helm of Detection (Irestone Inlet), Jasper Ring, Oven Mitts, Powder's Hide, Quintus' Sandals, Ruby Ring, Shadestone Necklace, Stormcleave Goggles (Stormcleave), Targath Amulet (Stormcleave), Teralin's Wedding Band (Abandoned Keep), Wightskin Belt, Zeef's Amulet(baudry's quest tier 2)



There also more basic items added to the compendium but not in game but so many to list :(

Missing_Minds
03-07-2009, 01:28 PM
Well, to be fair, I had Elliott but if you knew Elliott you'd know why I said I learned on my own. ;)

Sounds like me asking my mother how to spell words on occasion. Her answer? Go look it up in a dictionary. I'm standing with the dictionary open in front of me already trying that!!!

Missing_Minds
03-07-2009, 01:30 PM
There is always a chance of that, but first, we have to make sure we can provide good data.

Emm... are you talking data that is correct, or data that is in the correct order of bits so as not to be corrupted through an API?

If it is the latter, sure, if it is the first... let us have it any way. You have a community of free interns that want to help. Use us.

Borror0
03-07-2009, 01:37 PM
Sounds like me asking my mother how to spell words on occasion.
Oh, it is far worse. It's more like asking to your mom the definition of a word, then, to understand her definition you have to look up five new words in the dictionary and then take time to process all the new information.

NameisToad
03-07-2009, 02:05 PM
Well, there are a few and I think the major one is that if any would want to spend time editing, he would rather spend time editing the DDOwiki over the Compendium because most players agree that the Compendium is "worthless". Both in quantity and quality, the DDOwiki is superior to the Compendium (which is kind of sad because the wiki is kept updated in the spare time of what is the equivalent of three editors) and for this reason most knowledgeable players don't see the point in editing the Compendium.

Back in July of 2007 I created a few pages on the DDOwiki giving advice to new players about creating new characters and some general starting information. I did so because at the time, the only other place anyone could get that information was in the newbie help forums, and I was tired of typing that info out for one individual, only to have another individual ask a very similar question a few days later.

I intended to give links to the individuals who asked those types of questions, in order to save myself the time of responding in detail to each person who asked the same types of questions. Those pages in the wiki haven't been updated by anyone else since July 2007. All of the information I added then is now completely obsolete, as the character starting point is different and the options available to new players have changed somewhat.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing I would not know where to put this type of information. Should it go in the wiki, the compendium, or would it be better to put it on my guild website somewhere and then post links to it in the forums? My take for the moment is that it should go nowhere until more clear limitations get worked out.

I'm not saying that I'm a huge wiki contributor or that I know everything there is to know about DDO, because neither is true, but I am wondering how many people are currently putting off editing either of these because one looks obsolete and the other looks obtuse.

Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

Ustice
03-07-2009, 11:13 PM
Back in July of 2007 I created a few pages on the DDOwiki giving advice to new players about creating new characters and some general starting information. I did so because at the time, the only other place anyone could get that information was in the newbie help forums, and I was tired of typing that info out for one individual, only to have another individual ask a very similar question a few days later.

I intended to give links to the individuals who asked those types of questions, in order to save myself the time of responding in detail to each person who asked the same types of questions. Those pages in the wiki haven't been updated by anyone else since July 2007. All of the information I added then is now completely obsolete, as the character starting point is different and the options available to new players have changed somewhat.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing I would not know where to put this type of information. Should it go in the wiki, the compendium, or would it be better to put it on my guild website somewhere and then post links to it in the forums? My take for the moment is that it should go nowhere until more clear limitations get worked out.

I'm not saying that I'm a huge wiki contributor or that I know everything there is to know about DDO, because neither is true, but I am wondering how many people are currently putting off editing either of these because one looks obsolete and the other looks obtuse.

Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

I share this problem. I like that the Compendium is official, but after trying to fix some of the feat craziness and failing then finding that I am not able to correct "official" data I gave up. I'm glad to hear that this is going to be fixed. (thanks Duwis!)

Flaggedrev ftw!

Lorien_the_First_One
03-07-2009, 11:53 PM
We are all Kosh.

I think I met you once long ago.

iamsamoth0
03-08-2009, 09:22 AM
Following wand is missing from the compendium.

Eternal Wand of Charm Monster - (Misc) Charm Monster (CL:1, 2/rest) [Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard only, UMD:6] (Llyndarus's Chest in tempest spine)

Ou! Ou! ou!
ou! Iwant, I want!
Oh, ou!

Duwis
03-09-2009, 07:38 AM
Gathering up replies to some of the smaller posts into one...



I don't need GOOD data as long as it is consistent. :) I can filter noise if needed. (yay for regex)

There might be a time where we push data that is good but not entirely complete, but we're not to that point yet.



But now that you mention it, what sort of chance are we talking about here? ;)

We're always kicking around options for providing the community with more tools and toys.



The danger for Turbine, it seems to me, is that a player-run wiki setup is more likely to include information which is not always complimentary to the game; eg 'this feat is not good' and 'this enhancement is regarded as poor and rarely taken', which for understandable reasons they may not want in their official compendium, but for equally understandable reasons the players might want them there!

I hope you, Duwis, can take the same 'that means we need to get the data right' approach to those situations and let the game be guided by a 'players would stop saying virtuoso sucked if it stopped sucking' approach to more player access to including information.

As long as the discussion runs civil, I have no issue with people discussing the merits or lack thereof when it comes to game mechanics. That doesn't mean simply saying "No one takes this, and it sucks". This would mean something along the lines of "No one takes feat X because feats Y and Z work better across a wider range of beasties".



Following wand is missing from the compendium.
<snip>

The following are not in the game, they have been in the compendium for a long time and are items that are in quest that do not exist or items that were not included once DDO went live.
<snip>

There also more basic items added to the compendium but not in game but so many to list :(

Yes, the inclusion and exclusion of items on the Compendium is one of the issues that we're working hard on sorting out -- personal crusade of mine. This isn't going to happen overnight, unfortunately, but we're pushing hard to resolve this.



Emm... are you talking data that is correct, or data that is in the correct order of bits so as not to be corrupted through an API?

If it is the latter, sure, if it is the first... let us have it any way. You have a community of free interns that want to help. Use us.

Talking about data that is accurate though not necessarily complete. For example, if we push data about weapons/armor, we want to ensure the base stats are accurate, but we might not push any special effects/bonuses right away.



Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

Yes, we always enjoy people sharing on the Compendium their insight and experiences playing the game.



I think I met you once long ago.

Indeed, but now, I am currently stuck between 'Tick' and 'Tock'.

Duwis
03-09-2009, 08:57 AM
First of all, it means that you value reflection the game's data over valuable information.

Not at all; the two go hand in hand. Further down in your message, you posit the question on people's minds "Why should I bother with this wiki?". We see being able to have an accurate representation of the game data as the answer to that question. You come to the Compendium because we can (and should) provide the most accurate, up-to-date information on what is in the game.

Once we draw you to the site, we then need to encourage and enable the community to provide additional information that players would find useful. Tips, tricks, builds... all the stuff that helps de-mystify the mechanics of the game and explains why you might not want not use that +2 Armor even though the stats look good.



There are multiple of pages were the description is either incorrect or so generic that it does not give any information worth reading. It's not the fault of the Compendium, as it reflects the data found in the game but it still is a problem for the players.

Where it is incorrect, we are working on making it correct. As for generic information, I can only work with the data I'm given, but I can stand beside you and rattle the saber to get it improved.



The second problem is that the game does not seem to be coded for its data to be used by the Compendium. Let me elaborate on that.

The worse section for this is the feat section, which is a total mess.

We've been doing a great deal of work on cleaning that mess up. I think you'll see vast improvements on this soon.



All feats lack their prerequisites, which is basic key information.

/signed and something we're working on. Should be in the next update.



Racial feats, free feats and class feats are not separated from bonus feats (the ones you get at level 1 and every multiple of 3) which may be extremely confusing for the players.

Again, something we've been working on; I'll be interested to see if the results are less confusing.



Enhancements that are probably coded to act as a feat, like action boosts (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Barbarian_Damage_Boost_V), are added in the wrong category.

This is something I can say will be fixed in the next update. Overall, I believe we've done a better job in making sure feats and enhancements are separated properly.



Redundant feats spam the category, like favored enemies, weapon proficiencies, weapon focuses and weapon specializations.

Again, something you'll see fixed in the next update.



While I agree that it would be ideal if you could just have every automated, I am not sure it is a realizable project in the end. Of course, I do not have the technical knowledge to know whether this is true or false but that is how it looks from the user's end.

It is a realizable goal, just not one we're going to reach magically overnight.



When I say it is difficult to browse, it is because those who designed the Compendium fell for the two pitfalls of a wiki: too much information on the same page and assuming categories will the job for you. Class pages (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Ranger) are guilty of the first one. It requires far too much scrolling down to get to the information you want (which is made worse by the lack of a ToC) and the page is too long to load on bad connection/computers.

I can see your point; a ToC certainly would help on the class pages. A lengthy page isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I agree that some design love can help make it easier to get through.



Meanwhile, most category pages in the Compendium of the second. While listing all members of a category in the way it is currently done requires less work, it is much less enjoyable for the user who usually prefers pages with short descriptions as it allows to browse the category faster and with less clicking.

Not quite sure what you are trying to describe here; do you have any specific examples you can point to? In general, it is always helpful to have links in these discussions -- ones to examples you cite as problems and ones to examples of what you feel might be a solution or close to one.



When one sees he cannot correct the mistake,

This is probably where we might always have to agree to disagree. Our position is that the user shouldn't have to correct the mistake. It is our data we are working off of; it should be correct. When it isn't, we should provide the users with an easy way of letting us know so we can fix it.

My personal goal for the Compendium is to have the correct information in place, and to be able to respond quickly to patch it up when it isn't. I want people to be able to come to the Compendium and focus on writing more "fun" pieces about how to play the game rather than worry about "Gee, I'm going to have to first touch up the stats on this item or fill in the blanks on this feat first".



The weighty design around the 'official content' makes the 'unofficial content' look silly and gives the feeling to contribute to a low quality product.

Again, pointing back to the Lorebook, you can see we've come to the same conclusion and are working on ways to reduce, if not, eliminate that perceptual barrier.



How long can we should expect "long term" to be?

As long as it takes.



Not sure I understand your question.

Not important; was basically saying I can't give you a reason why namespaces were used. But, I can guess at why based on this wee block from MediaWiki's docs on the subject:



From MediaWiki 1.5 Recent changes ditto.

* Searching can be restricted to any subset of namespaces

User contributions can show all or be restricted to a namespace of choice.

The subpage featurehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Subpage_feature can be enabled for selected namespaces.

It is possible to customize the visual appearance of pages and the appearance and function of templates based on namespace.


I think you'll be seeing some good uses of searching by namespaces in the next update. (ooo... mysterious...)



That's the weakest argument, though.

When I say it's an overuse, I mean that it is unnecessary work for the editors and users. Because of your heavy usage of namespaces, an editor will have to type [[Feat:Power Attack|]] instead of [Power Attack]] each time he wants to link to the Power Attack page. Same goes for enhancements, items, etc. It's unnecessary work. Users go through the same trouble when typing the address of a page, even if that is a less significant problem.

I can't say I find this a compelling argument against using namespaces. Sure, it might be annoying to type out more characters, but you can conversely say that the tiny bit of extra work is beneficial in its readability.

I don't enjoy commenting my code, but the extra work saves me down the line when I have to revisit it. I know exactly what is going on in it. When I read the source for an article, I know exactly what is being linked to -- a feat called 'Power Attack' as opposed to a spell of the same name.

So, I can see it both ways -- potentially annoying but also potentially useful. Anyone else want to chime in for/against namespaces?



Most importantly, it is very confusing to use. It may lead to duplicates (v1 (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Stone_of_Good_Luck) & v2 (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Item:Stone_of_Good_Luck))

Agreed, but this is something an active community can police and iron out. We just need to get that community active.



or simply lead to complicated questions regarding what goes where,

Which is an argument for namespaces. :) Spells go in the spell namespace; feats in the feat namespace. ad infinitum... Rather than dumping everything into a large pot, we have specific sections for the various items.

Plus, we circle back to the fact that users coming to the Compendium shouldn't have to create new pages for in-game entities. We should make sure that if it is in the game, it has a page in the Compendium for the user to find. We want people to focus on having fun building the community rather than be burdened with the drudgery of adding in the basic information.



Let me just list you Favored Enemies to give you an idea:


Favored Enemy (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Favored_Enemy)
<snip>
Of all of these, only Favored Enemy is worth keeping. Others are simply repeating the same information for nothing.

There are others. Weapon proficiencies, Fighter <weapon> Specializations I & II, Improved Criticals, Power Criticals, Weapon Focuses and Weapon Specializations are the ones I can think of right now but there might be others. They are annoying and useless clutter in category lists.

I think many would love them to be removed. :)

Covered this above already, but I'll repeat that you'll see this addressed in the next update.

Angelus_dead
03-09-2009, 11:41 AM
So, I can see it both ways -- potentially annoying but also potentially useful. Anyone else want to chime in for/against namespaces?
As a programmer, I agree with you that Borror0's anti-namespace position is weak in theory. Whether it's smart in practice depends on details of exactly how the wiki software handles the automation.

Ideally, his objection that it obligates users to spend more work typing is something that should be addressed by server-side software: since namespaces are hardly ever needed to disambiguate between two terms, user-visible links can be shortened to omit namespaces whenever not necessary. That means that if a page is added on "Garibaldy" in namespace A, it's URL wouldn't mention any namespace until such time as a "Garibaldy" is created in namespace B. At that point, the original "Garibaldy" page becomes a disambiguation redirect (and preexisting internal links to Garibaldy at edited to point to the one that existed when they were written).

PS. Even using namespaces might not be enough to prevent ambiguity. What does "Power Surge" mean? Is it a level 20 Sorcerer enhancement, or a level 12 Fighter enhancement?

RTN
03-09-2009, 11:59 AM
Talking about data that is accurate though not necessarily complete. For example, if we push data about weapons/armor, we want to ensure the base stats are accurate, but we might not push any special effects/bonuses right away.


This is precisely why I still use the unofficial wiki over the Compendium. Turbine tends to treat the hard numbers as a DM would--on a need to know basis. The wiki treats them as a player does--we need and expect to know. The general descriptions, while great for roleplaying favor, are next to useless when planning builds, etc. The Compendium is infinitely better than it used to be, but it is still lacking. Put it this way, will the official wiki ever include the hidden effects on some items? Would you let players post this information on the official wiki?

Ustice
03-09-2009, 04:01 PM
As a programmer, I agree with you that Borror0's anti-namespace position is weak in theory. Whether it's smart in practice depends on details of exactly how the wiki software handles the automation.


The problem with using the namespace is that it is not designed for that sort of use. It's current implementation is that it is a hack. The OO programmer in me likes the idea, but the standards lover in me cringes. It is better to use categories for this purpose. It's cleaner, allows you to do category-specific searches, and wiki-standard.

Wikipedia, arguably the largest wiki around uses categories for their articles. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace) is how they define namespaces. Our current use just doesn't make sense in the context.

In Wikipedia jargon, a namespace is that part of the Wikipedia database where all the data of a particular kind are stored. This definition applies to all wikis that use the MediaWiki software.

Namespaces are like folders in a filing cabinet — or on your hard drive. The main namespace, for example, contains all of the encyclopedia articles and past versions of those articles. Likewise, the user namespace contains the personal pages of registered Wikipedia editors.

Wikipedia has 18 basic namespaces (12 of which are listed in the table to the right of this article) and 2 custom namespaces. With the exception of the main namespace, each namespace has its own prefix (such as "Wikipedia:" or "User:"). Some namespaces have abbreviations that you can use instead of a full prefix to identify the namespace in a search or edit (for example, "WP:" instead of "Wikipedia:").

Namespace

Main namespace
Wikipedia namespace
Help namespace
User namespace
Category namespace
Image namespace
MediaWiki namespace (help)
Template namespace
Special namespace
Media namespace
Portal namespace
(table namespace)


Categories, on the other hand, make perfect sense. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories) is how Wikipedia defines them.

Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. Categories can be defined as subcategories of other categories, allowing easy navigation between connected subject areas via a tree-like structure. This helps readers find articles on particular topics even if they don't know which articles exist or what they are called.

Junts
03-09-2009, 04:51 PM
This is precisely why I still use the unofficial wiki over the Compendium. Turbine tends to treat the hard numbers as a DM would--on a need to know basis. The wiki treats them as a player does--we need and expect to know. The general descriptions, while great for roleplaying favor, are next to useless when planning builds, etc. The Compendium is infinitely better than it used to be, but it is still lacking. Put it this way, will the official wiki ever include the hidden effects on some items? Would you let players post this information on the official wiki?

Duwis, this is a good extention of the point of mine you responded to (and I appreciate the response) - this also carries over to potential class imbalances, etc; there seems like a potential future conflict if any class is in need of enough help as, say, paladins were in mods 4-5-6ish, when constructive, helpful and non-negative advice on a paladin class page could reasonably consist of 'players playing paladins may find it difficult to acquire groups, as they are generally felt to be weaker than other melee classes at the moment and few people wish to have them in their groups - new players attempting to play a paladin may be very frustrated'. This was the general state of the game when I came to ddo, and I wanted to play a paladin. I was lucky to have the assistance of real-life friends who were established players in preparing and creating my paladin to be an effective character (and he has since recieved a lot of dev love), but I would say it would have been 40-50% likely that, faced with that kind of result of research on the class I love to play, I might have chosen not to play ddo; however, the advice itself would only have been constructive and factual, and hence it presents a conflict for Turbine: let players be honest and potentially discourage new players on macro balance issues, or censor player commentary on class strengths/weaknesses in a way that will discourage player participation and lead to the compendium, at times, presenting flawed or misleading information. Not everything in ddo performs the way it says its supposed to perform (for example, paladins are not particularly effective vs undead the way their class description suggests, rather, they are somewhat less ineffective and arcane casters are particularly good against them in a way that is not expected. A player making an undead-focused paladin may out-perform other melee to a certain degree, but will still be frustrated and have a very difficult time against monsters that a sorceror can slay by the dozen with a single firewall in actual practice).

Duwis
03-09-2009, 04:51 PM
The problem with using the namespace is that it is not designed for that sort of use.

This thread has gotten lengthy, so I'm not sure what context you are using when you say "designed for that sort of use".



Wikipedia, arguably the largest wiki around uses categories for their articles.

As do we; we use both namespaces and categories.



Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace) is how they define namespaces. Our current use just doesn't make sense in the context.


The more you quote the docs, the less likely you are to convince me that namespaces are "bad". :)


In Wikipedia jargon, a namespace is that part of the Wikipedia database where all the data of a particular kind are stored. This definition applies to all wikis that use the MediaWiki software.

Namespaces are like folders in a filing cabinet — or on your hard drive.

Right... folders in a filing cabinet... part where all data of a particular kind are stored... Sounds spot on with how we are using them; where do weapon articles go? In the Weapon namespace. Armor articles? Armor namespace. lather, rinse, repeat...



Categories, on the other hand, make perfect sense. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories) is how Wikipedia defines them.

Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. Categories can be defined as subcategories of other categories, allowing easy navigation between connected subject areas via a tree-like structure. This helps readers find articles on particular topics even if they don't know which articles exist or what they are called.

And we do use categories as well, so we have that navigation flow/structure covered also. We have two levels of organization for the articles we automatically create -- the high level "category" is the namespace with things sub-categorized inside through categories.

Duwis
03-09-2009, 05:02 PM
Duwis, this is a good extention of the point of mine you responded to (and I appreciate the response);
<snip>
however, the advice itself would only have been constructive and factual, and hence it presents a conflict for Turbine: let players be honest and potentially discourage new players on macro balance issues, or censor player commentary on class strengths/weaknesses in a way that will discourage player participation and lead to the compendium, at times, presenting flawed or misleading information.


We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

Darth_Sizzle
03-09-2009, 05:09 PM
We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

Unless...

The smell of elderberries causes some enemies to become sickened (-2 AC & slowed)

therefore

Play a paladin; they smell of elderberries. :eek:

sephiroth1084
03-09-2009, 05:11 PM
We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

This looks to be a good idea, but one that will be hard to implement. I'm not overly familiar with wikis (I use them as a search and info tool, but haven't posted to, or edited, any as yet), so I don't know how these things get handled. My concern, though, is that, unlike, say, an update of info to a scientific article, the relative value of one class, ability, feat, spell, enhancement or combination of the above are all just that: relative. And highly subject to person opinion.

I do think that linked discussions on a particular item would be most helpful to new players, or even people exploring a facet of the game they have not yet touched upon, but I don't know how we (Turbine and the playerbase/community who wish to see the Compendium become useful) could keep discussions clear of the usual bickering and unrelated tangents that tend to litter even the best forum debates.

Would these be subject to approval by a developer or webmaster, or to voting by the community, or...what? Perhaps this is covered by a basic facet of wikis that I am unfamiliar with, but that is my concern. My hope, is that you (we) can make this a functional and useful tool.

Junts
03-09-2009, 05:12 PM
We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

Yes; also, no longer the case (for paladins) but my concern was the potential conflict between 'honesty' and 'good ddo advertising' which, while undesirable, will occaisionally be the case: the game's not perfect, after all, and there will always be flaws. DDO's interest is in allowing the parts of it that are excellent to hook people and make them love it enough to tolerate/overlook the flaws.

So long as the compendium behaves in the way you've outlined, I think it will be quite useful and hope the playerbase will participate, though I suspect you will have to roll out your next update before they start.

Tolero
03-09-2009, 08:11 PM
I'm seeing a lot of responses that imply folks are "scared" to add to a page?

Don't be afraid of adding useful info in addition to the official info (and the newer layout will make it a lot less visually jarring. I definately understand that "BIG BLACK BOX OF FORMAL FORMATTING" is overwhelming the cool player entries. We'll be changing that :)). If you found out a cool "special" effect that wasn't on a weapon...add it! It's kind of like the researchers of the Twelve... new things are always being discovered by the people of Stormreach. We don't want to take away all the fun for you explorers out there who like to "discover" things... if we can help it :D but we also understand that some people don't want to "discover" they just want to "know". I've seen a few instances where players have found a good balance for this by adding a "SPOILER" header. The Quest pages is a good example of this... they added a sub-header called "SPOILERS"... that way if you have something you want to mention that you think might detract from the fun of discovery, you can put it under a "spoiler" header, and it's a little bit of a warning for people who don't want to flip to the last page of the book, so to speak ^^

If you have something you feel is more a matter of opinion than "fact", feel free to add it in the "discussion" tab of the article. That way people know it's not that it's a "concrete" piece of info, it's food for thought :) this is especially great for times when you want to mention something about a class, but you're not 100% sure on your number crunching etc.

We'll add some help pages this week to help out - I do find it can be scary when you try to edit a page but you're afraid of "messing" something up. Or you want to add something to a page, but you have no clue how to make it look "nice". We'll see if we can make it a little more fun, and less intimidating, in there with a couple basic help pages (just finishing em up tonight).

Ustice
03-09-2009, 09:30 PM
Will we be able to add those weapon effects where it is integrated with the rest, so that if someone if scanning the pages they have only to look in the one place (the proper place) for the info? If it is as an addendum, it is a lot less useful, even if it is prettier.

A lot of this is just so speculative. You said you'd give us some previews, so what are we looking at? I can't wait to see what yall are cooking up.

But the most important question is, will the favicon be updated? ;)

Oh, the spoilers thing? Very nice. Will it be as a roll-over thing like on the on the unfiction.com forums?

Strakeln
03-09-2009, 11:38 PM
Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberriesThere you have it, folks, a dev quote establishing what we already knew! :D:p

Kintro
03-10-2009, 12:53 PM
One problem I find with the compendium is that having multiple entries for the same thing in one single page doesn't really work when the page is long.

For instance, if I want to find more information on a particular enhancement/feat before I take it I'd go to the compendium and find the same descriptions I saw in game. I'd never know there was a second entry about the same thing further down the page. See the Monk page and in particular the stances for an example.

Is there a way we could tie the two sections together a bit more? Like if we could tag sections to reference them back to something in the official section. The presence of such a tag would trigger the addition of a "more info .." link through to the player added notes.

Duwis
03-10-2009, 01:22 PM
One problem I find with the compendium is that having multiple entries for the same thing in one single page doesn't really work when the page is long.

Yes, this is something we are working on in general. Junk items are particularly annoying...



For instance, if I want to find more information on a particular enhancement/feat before I take it I'd go to the compendium and find the same descriptions I saw in game. I'd never know there was a second entry about the same thing further down the page. See the Monk page and in particular the stances for an example.

Can you be more specific with this example? e.g., Go to http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Monk, then click on feat X, notice that Y is repeated. That will help me better understand at least this particular instance.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2009, 01:27 PM
Can you be more specific with this example? e.g., Go to http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Monk, then click on feat X, notice that Y is repeated. That will help me better understand at least this particular instance.
The situation there is that the icons for the Monk Elemental enhancements (like Disciple of Breezes) don't do anything by themselves; they provide two other icons that have active effects. So reading the description for Disciple of Breezes gives no useful information, meaning the auto-generated enhancement list is non-useful.

Players are unable to edit the contents of the automatic list to make it useful. Instead, some player has gone to the bottom of the page and provided full decsriptions of what Disciple of Breezes actually does, but there is no way for someone reading the auto-list to know it's there.

Kintro
03-10-2009, 02:55 PM
Can you be more specific with this example? e.g., Go to http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Monk, then click on feat X, notice that Y is repeated. That will help me better understand at least this particular instance.

By repeated I meant when they have one entry in the "Official" section and another in the "Unofficial" section. Once you find an entry on something you're unlikely to continue down the page looking for more about it.

Go to http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Class:Monk, scroll down to Enhancements, locate Disciple of Breezes. See the same description as was in the game and no more detail on what it does. Close page without realising there was much more detail added by players further down the page which isn't referenced anywhere else.

I suppose what we should do is add our information about feats/enhancements to the relevant subpage once you click away from the Monk page. However, you then lose the convenience of having them all together, have to click around and wait for page loads and have no natural place to put things that are about the class in general (ie, Finishing Moves).

Could we make more use of the popups? At the moment they just repeat what's already in the description column. Would you be opposed to having player generated content appearing in those boxes? That way we could have the popups giving what the actual benefits of some of the vaguer feats/enhancements (ie, Defensive Roll, Monk Stances) appearing in the popup.

Duwis
03-10-2009, 05:49 PM
The situation there is that the icons for the Monk Elemental enhancements (like Disciple of Breezes) don't do anything by themselves; they provide two other icons that have active effects. So reading the description for Disciple of Breezes gives no useful information, meaning the auto-generated enhancement list is non-useful.

Players are unable to edit the contents of the automatic list to make it useful. Instead, some player has gone to the bottom of the page and provided full decsriptions of what Disciple of Breezes actually does, but there is no way for someone reading the auto-list to know it's there.

OK, that is a good example and has stirred up the juices around here. We're kicking around ideas on the overall structure of the class page/data. However, I should be able to slide into the next update at least listing the stuff an enhancement grants in the class list.

Keep those examples coming!

Duwis
03-10-2009, 05:52 PM
By repeated I meant when they have one entry in the "Official" section and another in the "Unofficial" section. Once you find an entry on something you're unlikely to continue down the page looking for more about it.

*nod* *nod* The juices are flowing again around here to figure out how to best handle long pages like the class ones. Stay tuned!


Could we make more use of the popups? At the moment they just repeat what's already in the description column. Would you be opposed to having player generated content appearing in those boxes? That way we could have the popups giving what the actual benefits of some of the vaguer feats/enhancements (ie, Defensive Roll, Monk Stances) appearing in the popup.

Hrm... player entered text in the tooltips probably won't happen, but putting more useful information from the game data into them is something we can do. We don't want to overload the tooltip w/text, but if you have suggestions for them, please post them and we'll see if we can balance form and function.

Kintro
03-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Hrm... player entered text in the tooltips probably won't happen, but putting more useful information from the game data into them is something we can do. We don't want to overload the tooltip w/text, but if you have suggestions for them, please post them and we'll see if we can balance form and function.

The main thing I always like is more details, if something says, for instance, "grants increased attack speed with staves", the first thing I want to know is "well, how big of an increase?". If it says "granting increased Dexterity" I want to know how much more. If I can't find the numbers in the compendium I have to go elsewhere for them, I'd much prefer it all in the one place.

I think the popup would be a good place for the extra info as it allows you to keep the more wordy description on the main page too.

Ustice
03-10-2009, 09:19 PM
*nod* *nod* The juices are flowing again around here to figure out how to best handle long pages like the class ones. Stay tuned!

You know... With more access, we could HELP with that. ;)


(I know, I know.)

Hey, you aren't the guy to ask about the favicon, right? :D

Strakeln
03-10-2009, 10:06 PM
The main thing I always like is more details, if something says, for instance, "grants increased attack speed with staves", the first thing I want to know is "well, how big of an increase?". If it says "granting increased Dexterity" I want to know how much more. If I can't find the numbers in the compendium I have to go elsewhere for them, I'd much prefer it all in the one place.

I think the popup would be a good place for the extra info as it allows you to keep the more wordy description on the main page too.This would be very helpful. One of the more annoying things to me is when there is a poorly defined benefit ("You attack faster").

Duwis
03-10-2009, 10:25 PM
The main thing I always like is more details, if something says, for instance, "grants increased attack speed with staves", the first thing I want to know is "well, how big of an increase?". If it says "granting increased Dexterity" I want to know how much more. If I can't find the numbers in the compendium I have to go elsewhere for them, I'd much prefer it all in the one place.

I can understand the desire for more numbers, and where we can add them, we'll work on doing so.



I think the popup would be a good place for the extra info as it allows you to keep the more wordy description on the main page too.

Duly noted. Thanks.

Duwis
03-10-2009, 10:27 PM
Hey, you aren't the guy to ask about the favicon, right? :D

I don't play favorites with icons; I work them all equally to the bone.

sephiroth1084
03-10-2009, 10:39 PM
The main thing I always like is more details, if something says, for instance, "grants increased attack speed with staves", the first thing I want to know is "well, how big of an increase?". If it says "granting increased Dexterity" I want to know how much more. If I can't find the numbers in the compendium I have to go elsewhere for them, I'd much prefer it all in the one place.

I think the popup would be a good place for the extra info as it allows you to keep the more wordy description on the main page too.

Ditto. It's worth it for both new and veteran players.

Junts
03-10-2009, 11:02 PM
I can understand the desire for more numbers, and where we can add them, we'll work on doing so.




Duly noted. Thanks.

There's a lot of inconsistency on that, too - zeal tells you how big its bonus is, but other effects dont. there should be consistency with which types of mods are and are not given specific numbers, at least, and information on their type so we know about stacking: aclarity items cause a lot of confusion becuase they are enhancement bonuses, but their flavor text does not specify the bonus type, and untyhped bonuses do stack.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2009, 11:50 PM
I can understand the desire for more numbers, and where we can add them, we'll work on doing so.
You know, some numbers that are embarassingly wrong are the BAB entires on character class pages.

The wiki entries show D&D BAB (+6, +1), but DDO BAB is very different (+6, +6, +11)

RTN
03-11-2009, 01:54 AM
I can understand the desire for more numbers, and where we can add them, we'll work on doing so.


This gets to my biggest concern. Why couldn't you add hard numbers for many of these things? Will we be allowed to add them if you don't?