Talk:The Jade Quarry (mission)

I'm a bit confused, doesn't the Jade Quarry fall under the same circumstances as Fort Aspenwood, hence lose the (Mission) designation? I don't see the difference.--Chrono traveller 10:12, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The Fort Aspenwood article is atypical and currently undergoing discussion in its talk page. I believe we should base the pages on the scheme laid out in well established mission articles such as Thunderhead Keep, (redirect to Thunderhead Keep (Mission)) and Thunderhead Keep (Location). Koyashi 10:15, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would hardly consider it under discussion, guidelines that Karlos posted 2 months ago, and which noone disagreed with. I have no problem changing the standard, but shouldn't another discussion be held before changing it? --Chrono traveller 10:22, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The discusson on Talk:Fort Aspenwood had a different conclusion that what you seemed to think it did. Most participants agreed that the mission page should be in the standard "Page (Mission)" format. Koyashi 10:28, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, now you're really confusing me, I see the following guideline being applicable:
 * a) If a mission and alocation share the same name, the mission gets the unparenthesized (is this english?) name. Location gets the (Location) qualifier. The mission gets no parentheses because the name is shared with a location (2 locations actually). Furthermore, it seems that Draygo interpreted the discussion in the same way I did.  How did you interpret this? --Chrono traveller 10:40, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, see the precedent of Thunderhead Keep. The name without a parenthesized suffix is redirected to the (Mission) suffix. This is true for every mission in the game, including PvP missions such as Heroes' Ascent. I don't see a pressing need to make an exception for The Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood. Koyashi 10:44, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * To resolve the conflict, the unparenthesized name points to the XYZ (Mission) article. It does not contain the article itself. That's how all the missions in Prophecies are done. --Karlos 03:10, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your guidelines in Talk:Fort Aspenwood (Mission). --Chrono traveller 10:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

To-do
Still some things missing before it can be unstubbed...


 * NPC data.
 * NPC data on Luxon/Kurzick NPC guards.
 * Luxon Longbow (these also appear at Fort Aspenwood)
 * Luxon Wizard
 * Luxon Storm Caller
 * Kurzick Thunder
 * Kurzick Illusionist
 * Kurzick Far Shot

Since I play this mission almost everyday, I can help confirm their Elites (as a start.) --Xiu Kuro 11:24, 18 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The NPC's for both sides are the same. I played the Luxon side this weekend and I can confirm that the Thunder and the Illusionist have the same skills as the Storm Caller and Wizard.  Both sides are the same; the same advantages, disadvantages and exploits. :) --Aspectacle 17:54, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

As of now, due to a recent update (can't tell which one), the corpse Exploit has been (partially) fixed; the guard post nearest to the Luxon base is now pre-owned by Luxons. The Kurzick side, however, is -not- fixed. --Xiu Kuro 08:44, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Ranger NPCs
They've got fairly low health totals, I've killed them with one casting of Rotting Flesh and one or two castings of Deathly Swarm. I haven't been there in a while, so I don't remember if I was able to kill them with only a single casting of Rotting Flesh. I'm also not sure about the health totals of the other NPCs. -- Gordon Ecker 22:49, 24 October 2006 (CDT)