Talk:Armor types


 * Old discussion are moved to Talk:Armor Types/Archive
 * Talk:Armor Types/Archive2
 * /Archive3

Proposal - De-including the profession armor pages
Instead of including them as nested tables, I suggest to change to regular links: etc etc. It can be a bullet list or a table of links, either way is fine with me.
 * Warrior armor
 * Ranger armor

The reason is because the info for each profession armor sub-table will be growing, and is already quite large. Thoughts? -PanSola 00:56, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I liked the old way with the table and all, it looked nice --DragonWR12LB 22:27, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * The table still exist, just broken up into individual articles. One thing that irked me was the Warrior armor table was much longer than the Ranger one, making it look really unbalanced )-:  Anyways, if you feel strongly about the old ways, feel free to revert it. -PanSola 23:06, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

I like the current structure. But I have one question on the sequence of the "by profession" section. What order was used for the listing? As more professions are added, I'm liking the idea of alphabetical; but I didn't want to make the change if there was some methodology to the current sequencing that I missed. --I am 161.88 13:22, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
 * In-game profession selection order on character creation. - 13:24, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

The "original" colors
I don't think the "original" colors for profession armor are correct. I know there is a necro armor that's green out of the box and one that's red out of the box. --Karlos 09:20, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * The "out of the box" colors aren't necessarily "original" colors, which makes the choice of word "original" questionable. Necro armor that come green by default, when you apply dye remover on it, gives you a bleached red.  Likewise, Rogue's Armor which is usually blue when you get it from the crafter, turn bleached green I believe when you apply dye remover on it. -PanSola 09:24, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Applying dye remover does not give the original color. Original should mean as originally received without modification. Modifying it, either through a dye or through a dye removal, takes the color away from the color of the armor's origin. --70.246.153.94 10:44, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

"Original" color is the color in which you receive the armor from the crafter. "Base" color is the color underneath the "original" color which you get if you apply dye remover immediately after crafting.

new table
like the new table - this article is much more readable. --Sami 07:24, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, it's pretty. Me like :) --SavageX 02:48, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Collector headpieces
Going through the various armor pages, I noticed that information is given for finding the "free" collector's armor for every piece except the helmet. Any plan to update the wiki with this info? I would do it myself except I'm not very familiar with creating wiki pages and don't want to screw things up. Overall I think the best approach would be to formulate a section on Collector's Armor and provide detailed info on which pieces are available, from which NPC, for what strange parts they want in exchange, etc. Would be very helpful to new players who don't know where to find this stuff and don't necessarily have enough gold to craft all their armor.
 * Click on a general profession armor link from the first column of the first table, then the "headgear" link(s) in those articles. --68.142.14.40 23:45, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


 * THe mesmers have the info. I lack the passion for other professions to worry about them.  If you are interesetd you can look at how mesmer armor articles are structured/formatted, and adpat them to the other professions. - 23:51, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Standardization
I've been going through all the armor art articles, and I'm wondering why we still write out what stats each type of armor has in the crafting table, when reading about Obsidian and Prophecies armor (not always the case, no standard can be seen..). Nothing like this is used on any of the Factions armor pages. Should we try to standardize the armor art pages, and which of the format should be used in that case? Like the Prophecies/Obsidian or like the Factions armor pages? -- Stylva 07:13, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I prefer the Factions and Mesmer Obsidian Armor format in general. But I am obviously biased. - 07:49, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I also prefer those, since they are short and informative. The information not avaliable in the tables is linked to. I will start a slow standardization process, so we can discuss it if something turns out bad. -- Stylva 09:53, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

What happened to the crafting materials needed for each armor piece? Directed a player to the wiki for info on what materials (and how much of each) would be needed for his ele droks armor (when he gets there), but the information is gone. All that remains is a table that says what material but the total amount needed is no longer indicated. 65.7.211.83 06:32, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Is that really needed? Since it's quite easy maths to just add the materials together and get the total.. The amount for each piece is still there. --Stylva 08:36, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Where is it? All I see on the Elementalist quick armor reference is that you can get armor from Morgren in Droknar's Forge for 25 cloth and 4 of the extra crafting material (plus the gold). I find that hard to believe. If I remember correctly, the four pieces of any armor at Droknar's cost 28 of the extra material. No where do I find it broken out by piece or a total amount of materials. If that info is still on the armor pages somewhere than an explicit link to it is needed or the totals at least should be on the quick reference page.65.7.211.83 22:00, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I thought you meant the separate armor pages, like Aeromancer's Armor. They do show the materials needed for each piece. I agree with you, the quick crafting table should show the total. I will look into that. --Stylva 01:51, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Should we show the total cost of the whole armor, or as it is now, the unit costs on the quick reference armor pages? Since it is a quick reference, I think the total cost is more convenient, if you want a separate piece, you would go to the armor page in question. And they should be linked to in the table. Just my opinion. --Stylva 02:00, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I totally agree with Stylva. If you look at the quick reference, you are really sure what armor you want, and you want the whole set. Therefore, it would be easier to check if the totalt amount of materials was shown. If I want only the gloves from something, I check that armor page. I was anyway going to check how it looks. --Helena 02:29, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Not to beat this subject to death, but I don't see any breakout or even mention of required materials on the individual armor pages (or at least for Hydromancer, Pyromancer or Aeromancer); only each piece's bonus stat. That is what started my whole part of this discussion; the information is not appearing anywhere. 68.213.199.18 09:44, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Be sure to check the right page, eg Hydromancer's Armor (art) and not Hydromancer's Armor. The latter is the page for the function type, and does not contain any info on crafting. --Stylva 11:20, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Then perhaps a note on the main Armor page in the "By Status" column, telling the reader that materials information is on the art pages for Standard armor, but on the crafter pages for Ascended. Anything that would help people find the information. Maybe I'm dense, but it never occured to me to look at the "art" pages for materials. I knew which armor I was looking at and went Armor-Ele-Hydro-crafter which left me clueless and frustrated. Maybe standardizing where info appears would help other wiki users. I agree on eliminating redundancy, but clear paths to the information are needed.68.213.199.18 13:00, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. It's not obvious where to look for crafting materials. Maybe put the note on the function page named the same as an armor in PvE.. I don't know. --Stylva 14:01, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Um, ALL the crafting info are supposed to be in art pages, whether they are ascended or standard. And I disagree with making the quick reference the total cost.  I often want to mix and match different sets. - 16:01, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * First, what I understood, the problem is rather that the page Hydromancer's Armor doesn't show crafting info, or link to the Hydromancer's Armor (art) in a good way (just examples, since it was the elementalist armor that brought the topic up). It causes confusion for those not familiar to this wikis system.
 * Secondly, about the quick crafting. The reason I thought it would be nice with a total cost is to make it simpler for new people to use. Most (new?) people I've met and talked to want the whole set, and I got confused by unit costs for quite a few times while reading these pages as a newcomer. As you state, the unit costs is great when it comes to crafting pieces from different sets. Maybe we could still keep the unit costs in the quick reference, it's really useful, and include a table/column for total costs there. I've seen alot of people include that information in the armor pages, to quickly be corrected that that info do not belong there. Why not in the quick reference? --Stylva 17:14, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

X11 colours
Umm... am I the only one who thinks that the X11 colours that was recently applied to the tables look really dull and ugly? Given that most of the browsers still being used today that are used on systems that can actually play GW, I see no reason to restrict our colour schemes to only X11. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 03:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I wasn't going to say anything if I was the only one, but yes, I think the new colors are horrible. --Rainith 11:16, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. They are quite hideous. -- Stylva 15:09, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * My beautiful table. :( [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 01:30, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
 * General profession color discussion is going on at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting. --68.142.14.89 11:35, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

As it is, seems no one likes the muddy colors, so I took the liberty to revert it. It's unlikely the discussion on GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting will go anywhere. -- Ledrug 02:30, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Necro Scar/Cabalist's Armor
After noticing that Scar Pattern armour isn't available on the list I was about to add a link before realising that Cabalist's Armor is the new name for this armour. Wouldn't it be useful to have the link something like Cabalist's (Scar) to help others that make the same mistake? --SK  03:41, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. --Stylva 03:47, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I disagree. The name Cabalist's is only used when speaking about the function. It's in the list "by function". In the game it's named that, so that is what it should be named. The Prophecies armor is on Scar Pattern Armor (art), if you want that certain armor.
 * I want to compare this with the monk tatoos. In the table here it says "Ascetic's", and not all know what Ascetic's is. It does not say "Dragon design" or "Star design", since that is the art, not the function. Although, it's named Ascetic's in the game, so that is what it should be named. -- Helena 04:23, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The Ascetic's armor is named Ascetics at the crafter. The Cabalist's armor is named Scar pattern in Prophecies, and there should be something pointing out that it is the same as Cabalists. If you dont own Factions, you would never have seen the name Cabalist's before, and will only see it in FoW, I think. --Stylva 09:38, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ahyes, I checked it out myself. I remembred for sure that the Scar Pattern Armor was named "Cabalist's", but I now see I was wrong. Then there should be something to make the table easier to understand. Then I agree. -- Helena 09:48, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * What is it named for PvP? - 10:06, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Scar pattern armor 10:14, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Proposal - Removing the entire By Function table
First of all, looking at that table itself gives me no information whatsoever on what's the function is for each armor. Second, if it did, it would become the old version of this article that I found to be unwieldy and cut apart into separate articles months ago. I feel that IF there is to be a "by function" one, it should be links to generic articles such as "+energy armor" or "+health armor", much like the art articles that cross professions, not an "include" of the original profession armor articles minus the descriptions of the functions and before it got expanded to have art sections. - 12:21, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * agreed, replace "Tempest Armor" with "Armor while enchanted" and "Battlemage" with "Health" so the function is clear-er-er. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:22, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I actually meant an "Plus Health armor" article that overviews all plus health armor across the professions, and probably provide links to individual profession plus health armor articles within it, as opposed to piping the link. Like the Tyrian Armor article. - 16:41, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I just threw together a fairly dense table of armour bonuses by campaign. I'm working on another one that includes the PvP and Obsidian / Factions function names. Does anyone know how if there's a way to colour an entire column without having specify the colours for individual cells? -- Gordon Ecker 02:43, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Done. -- Gordon Ecker 03:39, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * One of the tables could also be used for an armor bonuses quick reference page, along with the base stats of all the armour types. -- Gordon Ecker 04:04, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Sample Tables
Without names.
 * P: Prophecies Campaign
 * F: Factions Campaign
 * N: Nightfall Campaign

With names.
 * P: Prophecies Campaign
 * F: Factions Campaign
 * N: Nightfall Campaign


 * Just use the bgcolor on the new line marker (eg |-bgcolor=lightgrey) 02:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * He wanted colums, not rows. BTW, I don't like the concept of this table.  Too much stuff are not common that I see no value in combining the data into a single table. - 03:34, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * We could also group profession-specific bonuses together into +armor (unconditional), +armor (conditional), +armor (vs physical subtype), +armor (vs elemental subtype) and miscellaneous bonuses, or stick them all in miscellaneous bonuses. -- Gordon Ecker 03:52, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't think that addresses the problem Pan pointed out. No matter how you arrange the rows, there will simply be too many empty cells.  --68.142.14.32 04:15, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The anon is correct. There are too many empty cells.  Or more importantly, there are way too many rows with only one item in it.  And at least as a minimum, I assume we can agree that such a table shouldn't go inside the Armor types article itself.  I am going to remove the original table that I proposed we get rid of, unless someone come up with a wieldy and useful and compact layout to be used for the Armor types article.  If we decide to have an evolved version of Gordon's table somewhere, it should be a different article. - 07:07, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Total cost
Should we, or should we not include the total crafting cost for an armor on it's armor page? It's a nice info, though it's quite easy to count yourself. Plus, it is hard to find a nice way to fit it in with the rest. 02:22, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I find it unnecessary, but I do not oppose its inclusion as long as it doesn't remove the part info. Even if I desire the entire set of a specific armor, I craft the individual parts as soon as I have the materials and money for them.  I don't wait to craft the whole set at once (the only theoretical exception is Obsidian armor, though I'm still more likely to get it piece by piece because I don't farm so the materials accumulate very slowly).  Thus to me personally, the simplicity of the addition is beside the point, I simply have no use for the sum information.  I would respect those who feel the need, if they stand up for themselves and make the case for it. - 02:30, 20 August 2006 (CDT)