Thanks for contributing to the wiki! Please use the the Show Preview button when editing pages. If you are new to editing wikis, you might not be aware that each revision is saved to the server every time you click Save Page. You should refer to the Help section for information about wiki editing. You may also want to check out Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Feel free to ask for assistance in the Community Portal or on an admin's talk page. When writing on a discussion page, don't forget to sign your comments with
~~~~. It will be converted into your signature when you save. —Vinifera7 (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently made some substantial changes to the Vendor Recipes page. Specifically, you removed the recipes for quality-adding orbs from the sortable table and formatted those recipes in a different way. To me it seems that your changes are presenting the same information, but with inconsistent formatting from the rest of the recipes. I'm just curious what you had in mind there. —Vinifera7 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found the original tables difficult to truly understand due to their length. Although the revised presentation is less consistent in the formatting, I think the additional analysis makes the recipes much easier to memorize. I'll try making the tables a little closer to the original. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I pretty much see what you're doing now. It's a completely different approach to organizing the recipes. The original method was to list the item(s) produced, followed by any recipes that produce it. With the old approach, you have in mind the item that you want to produce, so to find the recipes that produce it you simply scan down the table until you find it. Your organization method seems to be about grouping recipes by finding patterns in the types of items that are needed to create a recipe. It's basically the complete opposite approach. I can't say which method is better at the moment, but as long as you put in the effort to make the entire page consistent, I have no complaints at the moment. —Vinifera7 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue that the revised approach is more useful for PoE's random loot/crafting system. Since components are not tied to particular places, it's not possible to go hunting for components for a specific desired item. The original approach seems better for a "you need ten Rhoa shells to craft this item" type of system. Rather, the pattern in PoE is to try to make the most of the items you do find. This means knowing which items to pick up, which items to identify, which items to sell immediately, and which items to save. In party play, memorization is essential; by the time you look at the wiki and back, you'll have long been ninja-looted. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Removal of alt-conversion on currency... why?
I see you removed the currency>alt conversion from the currency page today, denoting "start removing alt equivalency---is not practical in light of open market exchange rates." I must say, I disagree wholeheartedly with this edit. These tables stand to save ill-informed players from potential currency scams... the kind of scams that are running rampant right now in every trade channel. I went looking for this list mere minutes ago to confirm that I was getting a square deal, only to find it missing, thus requiring me to do the math by hand instead.
I must request that this edit be overturned. Given your longstanding history on the wiki, I've decided to run this by you first to have a say.
- The problem is that the vendor Alteration equivalency breaks down in the majority of the cases. The vendor rates of Alteration -> Jeweller -> Fusing are decently close to the player market rate, but Jeweller -> Chromatic and every link in the chain of Fusing -> Chance -> Scouring -> Regret -> Alchemy are all bad ideas. If you went by the Alteration equivalency, you could just as easily get scammed in the other direction (e.g. paying 6 Fusing for 1 Alchemy or 10 Chrome, both of would be good ideas if the Alteration equivalency held, but are terrible ideas in practice), or make a bad trade with a vendor. My estimation is that this potentially misleading information is worse than no information at all, because it risks instilling false confidence. There's no way of knowing how well the Alteration equivalency holds in a particular case without outside information, and with that outside information, it's the outside information that's more important, not the Alteration equivalency.
- Sold points from both of you.
- Suffice it to say, I believe this information belongs on the wiki somewhere, be it vendor recipes (it is a recipe to some degree, no?) or the currency page, or both. Ignoring the potential for scamming in either direction, it's just solid information. Perhaps a glaringly obvious disclaimer is in order? Something along the lines of, "These values are provided for informational purposes only, and may not be indicative of the rates of your current market. Please take it upon yourself to do your own research before trading" or similar, maybe?
- I shall leave it to your discretion, Evil, as you are the more vetted contributor to this wiki. I'll just have to jot all this down for my person use, should it not come back.
- Thanks again, AngryTexan (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- As someone who doesn't trade on the open market, the vendor-based equivalencies mean more to me than any market rates, and I have looked those values up on the vendor recipes page to use them several times. Currency is probably the better page for it, and it is already there with such a disclaimer - I will remember to look for it there in future.
- What about a page on exchange rates - not to list current ones, so much as to explain the fluctuations, point out some hard limits like those the recipes create, and show some historic ranges to show how prices have moved over the last year? --Qetuth-(talk) 12:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- You could start by adding that information to the currency page. If it turns out that we have a significant amount of information to warrant a separate page, we can make a separate page. —Vini (t|c) 12:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)