Category talk:Skills: Difference between revisions
From A KoL Wiki
imported>Dehstil *insert long paragraph* |
imported>Gymnosophist m Proposed new table - skills by functionality |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*To me, the [[Skills By MP Cost]] is vastly more useful than a category approach. The [[Skills By MP Cost]] table shows what each skill does, something that you don't have with the category approach. Additionally, we have traditionally attempted to eschew catagories unless they are really helpful. I see no reason to do it here. And what's with the squinting? P.S. [[Skills By MP Cost]] is a table that [[User:Jinya|Jinya]] commissioned me to do. --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 23:28, 15 August 2006 (CDT) | *To me, the [[Skills By MP Cost]] is vastly more useful than a category approach. The [[Skills By MP Cost]] table shows what each skill does, something that you don't have with the category approach. Additionally, we have traditionally attempted to eschew catagories unless they are really helpful. I see no reason to do it here. And what's with the squinting? P.S. [[Skills By MP Cost]] is a table that [[User:Jinya|Jinya]] commissioned me to do. --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 23:28, 15 August 2006 (CDT) | ||
*That's similar to saying it's easier to read a table of all equipment in the game, their type, and what they do than sifting through categories, which may actually be a case, for some people. I think it's just a case of which way people like to search through things. If a certain type of item or skill plays a special role in mechanics they really should be separated though, just as pants work different from shirts, passive skills work differently from combat skills. The difference here is the amount; are there enough for separate categories? Maybe. Are skills regularly added and such? Not so much as items are recently, but they used to a bit o' class revamps. See [[Proposed Standards#Categorization]] Where I tried to define when a category was needed (may need work).--{{:User:Dehstil}} 17:06, 16 August 2006 (CDT) | *That's similar to saying it's easier to read a table of all equipment in the game, their type, and what they do than sifting through categories, which may actually be a case, for some people. I think it's just a case of which way people like to search through things. If a certain type of item or skill plays a special role in mechanics they really should be separated though, just as pants work different from shirts, passive skills work differently from combat skills. The difference here is the amount; are there enough for separate categories? Maybe. Are skills regularly added and such? Not so much as items are recently, but they used to a bit o' class revamps. See [[Proposed Standards#Categorization]] Where I tried to define when a category was needed (may need work).--{{:User:Dehstil}} 17:06, 16 August 2006 (CDT) | ||
**That is ''exactly'' what I'm saying - it's easier to read a table of all equipment in the game, their type, and what they do than sifting through categories. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying that ''all'' tables should be deleted in favor of category usage. Historically, the category has been viewed as an organization mechanism of last resort. If information can be more usefully organized by the use of a page or a table, than that should be the preferred organization mechanism. Generally speaking, if a table doesn't provide needed information, then it should be modified or a second table constructed. As for skills, I think we have the cost angle covered, thereby covering passive skills. But for combat skills, etc., I think we should add a second page (possibly using a table) showing skills by functionality, with sections such as "Melee Combat Skills", "Spell Damage Skills", "Defensive Combat Skills", "Misc Combat Skills (Combat Inititive, Funkslinging, etc.), "Gains From Combat Skills" (for drop and stat gain skills), "Monster Level Skills", "Stat Buff Skills" (Muscle, MP, etc.), "Elemental Resistance Skills", "Crafting Skills", "Familiar Weight Skills", and "Misc Skills" as a catch-all for the leftovers. What do you think? --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 21:48, 16 August 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 02:48, 17 August 2006
Can someone seperate the different classes' skills? I would do this, but I can't edit it for some reason... =p Kookoo275 5:44 monday april 3, 2006
The different classes' skills can be found on their respective class pages (ie. Pastamancer). This page is meant as a collection of every skill in the game regardless of class.--SomeStranger 19:49, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
What would be nice is a separate page for all Passive skills vs. Buffs vs. Other spells. I'm going after all the passive skills (I'm sure other people have done the same thing), and having them organized somehow on here would be nice. Holler 02:13, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
- We already have such a page, it just wasn't linked. I've added a link to Skills By MP Cost. --Gymnosophist 04:03, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
- Well, we could do categories like "Passive Skills", "Combat Skills", etc. It's easier to read when looking a certain type of skill then squinting at one list of all skills. We already categorized items in such a way and I see no reason not to do it here. We could even do it by template.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:40, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
- To me, the Skills By MP Cost is vastly more useful than a category approach. The Skills By MP Cost table shows what each skill does, something that you don't have with the category approach. Additionally, we have traditionally attempted to eschew catagories unless they are really helpful. I see no reason to do it here. And what's with the squinting? P.S. Skills By MP Cost is a table that Jinya commissioned me to do. --Gymnosophist 23:28, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
- That's similar to saying it's easier to read a table of all equipment in the game, their type, and what they do than sifting through categories, which may actually be a case, for some people. I think it's just a case of which way people like to search through things. If a certain type of item or skill plays a special role in mechanics they really should be separated though, just as pants work different from shirts, passive skills work differently from combat skills. The difference here is the amount; are there enough for separate categories? Maybe. Are skills regularly added and such? Not so much as items are recently, but they used to a bit o' class revamps. See Proposed Standards#Categorization Where I tried to define when a category was needed (may need work).--Dehstil (t|c) 17:06, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
- That is exactly what I'm saying - it's easier to read a table of all equipment in the game, their type, and what they do than sifting through categories. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying that all tables should be deleted in favor of category usage. Historically, the category has been viewed as an organization mechanism of last resort. If information can be more usefully organized by the use of a page or a table, than that should be the preferred organization mechanism. Generally speaking, if a table doesn't provide needed information, then it should be modified or a second table constructed. As for skills, I think we have the cost angle covered, thereby covering passive skills. But for combat skills, etc., I think we should add a second page (possibly using a table) showing skills by functionality, with sections such as "Melee Combat Skills", "Spell Damage Skills", "Defensive Combat Skills", "Misc Combat Skills (Combat Inititive, Funkslinging, etc.), "Gains From Combat Skills" (for drop and stat gain skills), "Monster Level Skills", "Stat Buff Skills" (Muscle, MP, etc.), "Elemental Resistance Skills", "Crafting Skills", "Familiar Weight Skills", and "Misc Skills" as a catch-all for the leftovers. What do you think? --Gymnosophist 21:48, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
