Regarding Item Inclusion / Exclusion[]
Here are my thoughts:
1) I think quest / bop items should be included, if they look interesting and have a regular means of acquisition. If a quest grants a staff with a big spider on it or a hood with giant bat ears, people are going to want to know such a thing exists and (ideally) what that quest is.
2) For now my knee-jerk reaction is mundane looking things that are not the core look of the weapon should also be included. A generic axe for a guardian fighter is still notable since that class mostly gets swords and there are still "Where do I get axes" threads popping up. Eventually if there are many examples we could combine them under (for instance) a single "mundane axe" link, but we don't have that many yet.
3) Yes I included some stuff that was a bit tame like some of the DC helmets, but in several of those cases those were items that people in the DC character look thread basically went "OMG, where is that from!". Also at this point being a bit lenient with inclusion helps give the list a little more heft. We can always gut it a bit later.
4) Naturally, generic sets stuff like "Leather Boot +2" should not be included, and aren't. Though I'm including the combined full set images in the galleries since they are handy to see there.
5) I've also included things that don't have a page / image to initially pad the list and in hopes that it will encourage some new wiki editors to go "Hey, if I sign up I can fill that in." It would be nice to see more hands in the wiki editing mix. -- Serpinecoh
- Yea I'm ok with you including some BoP stuff, as long as it looks "good/recommended - in at least someones opinion, could be yours/anyones". The robe looks rather dumb imo, but if you think it looks good, it can be included. That and you include a note that it's not easily available (recommending someone pay 60 bucks just for 1 item for its appearance isn't a good recommendation.)
- And well the others I removed were essentially most expensive/best in slot loot in the game. You seriously recommend someone trash a 400-1000k+ item just for it's look? I mean you could create a separate category for that instead. Something like "powerful gear with unique looks". EG: Items worth actually just plain equipping, rather than transmuting.
- Else we could just rename the whole page and restructure it to just be "items with unique looks". It's just the "recommended" and "transmute" words that get me, for such items.
- I'm fond of the robe because I got it with a pack I was buying anyway, and it lets me have a cleric with a tattered robe over armor look which I find pleasing. And I have destroyed some very expensive items for their look, as have various other people I know in my guild and otherwise. Some people just need to have a particular look and still want maximum stat efficiency as well: By design transmutation is a hugely wasteful process. I'd kill for a system like some MMOs where the source item just hangs around (and you have the bank space to support it) but unfortunately for now we don't have that here.
- In any case, your point is absolutely valid about words like "recommended." It has a strong inherent bias and is thus not appropriate for the page. I've changed the wording to be more neutral.
- And thanks for signing that post for me. :) -Serpinecoh (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
CW feet - boots of the shadowmancer - black studded kneeboots w/ lavender trim. i like them. The Evil Dr F (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)