Talk:Armor types

I'm worried that building a page like this, with just lists and lists of info, is going to make it grow very large over time. Would a better idea not be to have Necromancer Armor, Warrior Armor etc.? Maybe even a page for each set of armor might make more sense in the long run...

Restructured this page to not be crazy. Here's my proposed template for this stuff:

==Description== General text description + image of the armor in its -default coloration- ===Stats=== The list of stats at each iteration of the armor (i.e. 30, 45, 51, 60) ===Usage=== This is the kind of environments/player styles it's good for ===Customisation=== Color combinations that look particular interesting? Possibly also something with runes ===NPCs that craft it=== * (begin list of npcs; link to the NPC) ===NPCs that will trade for it=== * (begin list of npcs; link to the NPC)

look alright? left anything out? Nunix


 * That looks fine Nunix, except I don't like how there's now an Armor: Namespace. I think a better way of doing this would be to have Armor/Ascetics and Armor/Dragon or something, or even Dragon_Armor LordBiro/Talk 20:24, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

Soo.. instead of a title of "Armor:Dragon" we'd name it.. "Armor/Dragon"? That seems fundamentally the same to me, did I miss something? XD I like having a qualifier in front of it since then these pages can be organised according to general sets. I dunno, it's definitely not set in stone, just wanted to get a page for this up (and Talk:Main Page is getting a bit crowded). ..actually, oh. I kinda see what you mean. Talk: is a special thing, don't muck it up with whatever new Armor: or Update:, etc? I can dig that (though verify this before I go around changing things ;) Nunix


 * Yeah that's basically what I mean. Armor/Something implies that Something is part of the Armor article, whereas Armor:Something implies that Armor is a project, and Something is an article. Like Style & Formatting, GuildWiki isn't an actual page, its a project. Style & Formatting/Skills is a skill specialisation of the style & formatting article, but style & formatting is not a specialisation of the guildwiki article... does that help? lol LordBiro/Talk 00:04, 15 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * My wiki fu isn't that strong, but I don't think it's actually a namespace but just something with a colon in the name. I think an admin has to actually make a namespace and if you just make an article with a colon in the name, it's just in the main namespace and happens to have a colon.  There's no Special:Namespaces, but if you go to your preferences -> search options, armor doesn't show up as a namespace even though there are some Armor:something articles now.  That being said, I think the right way to go is to make an armor category and place the types in it, like how quests, locations, skills, and a lot of other things are now.  --Fyren 12:00, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

I think the statistics nomenclature that is used for armor (#/#/#) should be explained, if not here, then somewhere more appropriate. – Quoth 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

I'm glad you liked the style Jazim, nice work copying it to all the other armours. I looked at the list and though "Why should I pick this armour over another" without visiting each page to look. To add it to the existing table would have been very messy and I had seen the logo's used on another page, which looked excellent. Thanks again Jazim. --Blastz 23:22 22 Aug 2005 (BST)

-

How armor works
As far as I can tell (And I may well be pulling at straws), each "Area" (Ascalon, Mountains 1/2, Kryta, Jungle) has an armor vendor, as well as a set of collectors. Each vendor sells armor of standard types, with an armor factor that is unique to that vendor. Certain armors are also naturally higher armor factor (Dragon, Wyvern, etc...). Other armors have different improvements (Gladiator has energy bonuses, Knight has damage reduction). The Collectors give you "Basic" armor with ~+50% armor factor.

I think that basic bit of info needs to be cleaned up, and then the vendors and the bonuses put into tables for better readability. -Kathryn Maulhammer

Pictures
I think it would be nice to have pictures of each armor and their ascended version(s).

It might be preferred to use armor pictures in their original colors, or one original one dyed (to see which areas are affected by dye). Also some users might be interested in how one particular piece of a set looks like, and showing the full set together isn't helpful. Some upper-body armor actually covers the arm while others don't, and at least one lower-body armor is completely blocked from view by its upper-body counterpart.

Thus I would suggest having images of:
 * 1) . Whole set view (male/female)
 * 2) . Upper-body + boots (male/female) (undyed/dyed) (front/capeless-back)
 * 3) . Lower-body + gloves (male/female) (undyed/dyed) (front/capeless-back) + headpiece if part of set

2 and 3 each has 8 combinations, so that's 10 images per armor set ~_~"

To avoid cluttering the armor description page from too many images, I also suggest for each armor set add its own picture page. The armor description page would only disply the "whole set view" (which makes it look like the current layout) while having link to the picture page.

While getting all those pictures would be a large undertaking (especially capeless shots?), I think it would provide a much clearer view to players who want to purchase armor based on asthestic factors (I know I was pondering which monk tatoo set to get). Is this a good idea? I can contribute a few shots (heck I'll even temporarily leave my guild for the capeless shots).

Also since 2 and 3 are more particular, might as well suggest the shots be taken in the Kryta area, where lighting is most neutral. In Ascalon things look red/orange-er, in Shiverpeaks things look white/grey-er, in jungle and caves things look darker, and in the desert things look too bright... Or just hang me for being too picky d-:

-PanSola 14:07, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * Lynch, please. :) I actually like the rationale behind the different images, though I certainly think they should go into the individual armor set page. This page should actually be cleared of all the images clutting its bottom --Karlos 21:31, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * I just realized something didn't come out as I meant it above. I meant instead of having all 10 images clutter each armor detail page (such as Enchanter's Armor, not the main Armor_Types page), create new pages such as Enchanter's Armor Pictures to hold all 10 images (while still keeping the 2 pics on the armor detail page).  Reasoning still the same (avoid clutter), just that the page(s) being avoided of clutter was ambiguous the way I wrote it.  I'll screenshoot some pictures for the female 15k enchanter set tomorrow to play with layout stuff.  Is creating these new pages a good or bad idea? -PanSola 22:06, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * I'd suggest you creat a sample page. click on the Enchanter's armor page, click edit, then copy all. Then go to your user page, add "/test" to the URL and hit enter. It will take you to a blank page. Edit it and paste the Enchanter's armor there, then work on that page. This way you'll be free to fiddle with the layout and not worry about rejection/acceptance. --Karlos 22:14, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * Here we go: User:PanSola/test_Enchanter%27s_Armor_15k. This really convinces me that we need separate gallery pages for female and male armor.  Must people checking the detail image section probably only cares about one of the two sexes anyways.  Additionally, perhaps 15k version and regular version should use one single gallery page, for better contrast of the differences.  I really should have picked red instead of purple for the dye-able area test though, purple is too dark and too similar to the black laces, and also confusing with the purple underwear...  I also added a side view for enchanter's set, because the glove and hose details are pretty much on the side.  Not sure if other armor sets will need that too.  Feedback? -PanSola 11:47, 18 October 2005 (EST)

Nomenclature

 * 1) Why the differentiation between "15k armor" and "Fissure armor"?  There seems to be some overlap among the two, as well.  An explanantion of how this all works and why the differentiations exist would be helpful. Wow, such differentiation is already in the article, it's just not obvious.  I'll fix that.
 * 2) The term "15k armor" definately belongs in the Slang category.  ArenaNet has only officially referred to "Ascended armor."  We aught to do the same.  Especially since "15k armor" technically refers to "fissure" armor as well.  Which of these two groups does "Ascended" apply to, if any?

&mdash;Tanaric 17:44, 19 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I had made a "15k armor" article once in the slang and jargon category, but it appears to have been replaced with the category. But even though it is slang/jargon, I think it would be more confusing to people if we called it Ascended armor.  Had I not read the update notes for the last patch I would have never even heard of it being called Ascended armor before.  --Fyren 17:54, 19 Jul 2005 (EST)

How about "pic" or "pic." instead of "picture" to make the tables less wide? --Ollj 18:12, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)

Armor Bonus...
For armor bonuses, there is often a line like this: "Bonus(es):	+60 AL total vs piercing," however, that is misleading... the bonus only applies when you get hit in that piece of armor. So, even though you may have +15 AL vs. piercing on all your armor, you will never get a +60 bonus...

Just seems strange to me...


 * Coming across the text "...the damage absorbtion from Ascalon Armor is independant of hit location..." concerns me. How has this been confirmed?  Is there a place in the game that shows the armor class of the player?--FngKestrel 19:59, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * If bonuses apply only when you get hit in that piece of armor, shouldn't damage reduction function like that too? Again, the lack of documentation or proof bothers me.--FngKestrel 16:03, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I replied in Talk:Absorption about how to test. --Fyren 20:21, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * For "Armor +x (vs blah)", it's local. For "Gives x armor while blah", effect is global (but does not stack with more armor).  Damage reduction effects are always global (only need one piece to cover while body), but armor damage reduction work on all damage types, whereas rune reduction only work on physical attacks.  Finally, reduction from armor and from rune stack.  Details of extensive testing done by players can be found at http://forums.gwonline.net/showthread.php?t=365109 and http://www.gwonline.net/page.php?p=157 and http://forums.gwonline.net/showpost.php?p=3656200&postcount=32 .  Again, armor bonuses of the same effect never stack with each other, so things like "+60 AL total vs piercing" really doesn't make sense.  The guys who ran the tests doesn't care what is "fair", or "intuitive", or what "makes sense".  They just ran tests to find out how things work currently (or at least as of when they last tested things, which was after the release of Sorrow's Furnace I believe). PanSola 07:07, 14 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * One more thing, why does the page says MINUS 10 AL vs physical for some of the warrior armors? Is that for real? PanSola 07:07, 14 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Ugh. I fixed the bonuses that somehow got flipped to penalties, but I didn't go through all the individual pages to remove the "totals."  --Fyren 14:19, 16 October 2005 (EST)


 * Hmm, I just figured out what was going on with the bonus. Typically we think of bonus in the game as the none-white stats (except for energy regen, which is blue) for weapon/focus/armor.  However, here the person typing the info was thinking "stats difference from the basic armor".  Because warrior armor has innate +20AL vs physical, the sets that only has +10AL is, relatively speaking, -10AL vs physical when compared to the basic armor.  This makes figuring each armor's state pretty confusing, even though it's supposed to make quick comparisons easier. - PanSola 22:32, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * I reverted for now, but since you seem into this, figure out a clearer way to describe the info or the tables, heh. --Fyren 02:19, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * How about this, remove innate bonuses from the "basic" state, with the downside of the vanilla armor is no longer basic, and the same stats appear in many rows. (edit: check User:PanSola/test_Armor_Types instead)  (edit: deleted that page, because I like how the current page look now)


 * I wasn't not sure whether to make the headgear bonus "various" and include set headgears (warrior is the only class that has headgears for certain sets), or to separate them. Ultimately I went with the latter idea.  Feedback?
 * The reason I still treat the "up to 80 AL" as standard (despite sets that have 85 AL), yet treat the AL vs physical differently is because AL is an intrinsic stat for armor, and the vs Physical is a bonus, which varies throughout different sets (in fact, there are more +10 vs phy than +20 vs phy sets). For the Ranger, the vs elemental damage, because it is a constant, can be factored to the top.  For all classes, energy regen is factored to the top.  As for energy, I'm more inclined to keep it factored to the top too, because whatever energy the armor gives, you need to add 20 to get total energy anyways (not to mention from weapon/focus).  So making it a per-row stat won't really affect the complexity of figuring out total energy.  Time to let me know why you hate me d-:
 * I also rearranged the order, let me know if it looks better or not. BTW, I can't find armorer that sells chainmail or soldier's set.  Are they discontinued?-PanSola 08:12, 18 October 2005 (EST)
 * For headgear, "various" and a link to Warrior Headgear in some manner (and hopefully someone can fill that page in a la Elementalist Headgear). I don't have a PvE warrior to check warrior crafting info (or about chainmail or soldier's).  On using the "basic" set as reference, I still really don't like that you end up having to say -10 vs physical for platemail.  --Fyren 08:58, 18 October 2005 (EST)
 * Blah, my bad, platemail should be +10 after the change. User:PanSola/test_Armor_Types


 * In User:PanSola/test_Armor_Types, shouldn't Druid's Armor be +11 Energy (total)? Overall, I'm finding the partial factorization more confusing.  I'd rather see everything either completely factored (relative to basic) or completely expanded.  Also, with any factorization, the header "Bonus" should be expanded more to something like "Relative Bonus" or "Relative Difference". --Rezyk 12:03, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * Good point, the total mean bonuses summed over each piece... Arg, let me think it over... -PanSola 12:37, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * Changed "total" to "combined", and "bonus" to "Mods". Better? -PanSola 12:43, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * To be honest, "combined" seems pretty synonymous with "total" to me (as in, it would be the combined sum of all factors), and with "Mods" I would more expect all the non-base AL stuff to be listed in each row. Also, why not drop the "combined" for energy regen and gladiator's, since there's nothing separate to add in for those?  --Rezyk 17:37, 19 October 2005 (EST)
 * Guess it still doesn't work. What I meant by "total"/"combined" was adding up all armor pieces.  Maybe I should just drop it alltogether, and not worry about minority of ppl assuming each piece has a +10 energy bonus...  They'll figure out once they check the armor detail, the summary doesn't need to be perfect I guess.  I'll think about it more when I wake up. -PanSola 22:50, 19 October 2005 (EST)
 * what's wrong with: Base AL, Bonus AL, Extra Bonuses? --Karlos 22:11, 19 October 2005 (EST)
 * Nothing specifically wrong with that. Didn't see anyone doing it that way, so didn't occure to me to do it that way.  I'll give it some thought after I wake up (-:  -PanSola 22:50, 19 October 2005 (EST)

I like how User:Rezyk described the "10 less +AL vs physical", so I modified the energy penalties accordingly. Now one thing still bugs me: If basic armor has +10 energy, and a certain set's difference from basic armor is +7 energy, will some people still get confused and think, "Oh, that set sucks, it has 3 less energy than basic"? Like how someone was still confused with the censor armor's penalty after the table was changed to say "Difference from Basic". The semantic ambiguity of "arithmatic difference" and "not being the same" embedded in the word "difference", I think. -PanSola 11:30, 21 October 2005 (EST)
 * Glad you like it. =) We could try something similar for the bonus energy armors ("7 more +energy"). Btw, I like how you dealt with the "global" note. --Rezyk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (EST)

Collector Armor
Although the stats are the same for a piece of armor obtained from a collector to the appropriate piece from an armorer, looks are completely different (at least for some professions, haven't checked them all). How do we document this? Add some more pictures and a note to the existing pages or create a separate article for collector armor? --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 05:27, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Maybe just note it on one of the collector-related pages somewhere? It would be a hassle to get screenshots.  --Fyren 12:04, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Well, for Ringmail, the stats and look are both way different; Standard ringmail is +50 armor, collector's is +64 or something... --Midk 12:22, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * The stats depend on where you get the armor. Usually collector's armor is a little bit better then armor from armorers in the same region, to make up for the extra effort to obtain them. I.e. you'll get collector's ringmail with AL 59 in Northern Kryta. To get that from an armorer, you'll have to go to the Maguuma Jungle. And there collector's ringmail has AL 71. But if you compare the best avalible (from armorer at Droknar's and from collectors in the Southern Shiverpeaks) you will find that they both have AL 80. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 19:12, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I added the collector's armor for the Ranger (since I just completed my AL 70 set last night). The Collector Armor provides the same bonuses as the "base" armor for a class (for the Ranger, that's the Leather Armor), but has a different look. Feel free to edit it into oblivion if you don't like the change, but I think it's a good differentiation. --Francois42 11:12, 31 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Right now we only have Elementalist Collector Armor Ranger Collector Armor, can someone confirm whether the collector armor for the other professions look differently too? --Thundergrace 22:37, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Confirmation for mesmer and warrior, with high certainty. I actually never got the Stylish set from the armorer, but the screen shot in Stylish Armor look just like mesmer presearing starting Stylish set, which looks very dfferent from the collector Stylish set (at least for mesmers, both collector and armorer basic armor have the same name).  I salvaged mine a long time ago though...  For warriors, the collector armor is also called the Ringmail set.  Again looks different from the presearing starter ringmail set (and the starter ringmail again matches screenshot for Ringmail Armor, but I never got it from the armorer personally.  Also, Soldier's set and Chaimmail set also are described as "basic" at Armor Types.  I don't know what they look like, and can't confirm if collector Ringmail set look the same or different from those two sets. -PanSola 23:08, 17 October 2005 (EST)

Helm info
Hey guys, I notice this page is lacking info on helms; ie I just tried to find out if there is a +1 tactics 15k helm anywhere, but there is 0 warrior helm info :(


 * This is a co-op effort, if you don't find the info, try to discover it and post it. To answer your question, it's the Ascalon Armor 15k set sold at Marhan's Grotto. --Karlos 18:02, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I'm working on the helm info, but we need to clarify a few things first. Foremost, those helms that belong to an armor set, should be listed under that set. For example the Ascalon Helm should be covered by Ascalon Armor, which isn't the case at the moment. --Tetris L 18:39, 24 October 2005 (EST)


 * I would suggest for helms that are part of the set, at least have their name and bonuses somewhere in the headgear article, and link to the set articles for more info (crafting, pics etc). This way, when someone click on "Warrior Headgear" they will still see every type, while minimizing the redundency of information.  Alternately, rename the Warrior Headgear article as "Warrior Attribute Headgear", but I don't like this approach. -PanSola


 * I have listed the armor set helmets, with stats but without crafting info (as you suggested). Check Warrior Headgear. I will fill in the missing info tonight. --Tetris L 20:13, 24 October 2005 (EST)


 * Looks great! Eventually I'll be coming up with a proposal to merge regualr and 15k armor articles, as one of my stepping stone for world domination.  But until then, we have the "15k set helm" issue.  I think Gladiator's the only 15k set that doesn't have a 15k helm, the rest do (Dragon is the 15k version of Wyvern, so you kinda mislinked there).  Basically, the point of this comment is, we should probably link to 15k set armors that have helm too.  Maybe just add an additional column as opposed to creating a new row for each 15k armor that doesn't have a unique name. -PanSola 22:59, 24 October 2005 (EST)

Armor Crafter Screens
I think these should definately go away. What are they doing here and what do they mean? --Karlos 18:02, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)

Armor Pieces not belonging to a set
I am missing some "special" pieces of armor that do not belong to a set, for example warrior Stonefist Gauntlets. --Tetris L 20:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)

It's also missing the necros "Bloodstained Boots": The stats on the ones I got from droknars forge are: Armor: 60 Spells that target corpses are faster. Energy recovery +1

Suggestion on Armor Table Ordering for Each Profession
Right now it's "kind of" alphabetical, but not quite, with headgear on top, fissure on bottom, everything else alphabetical in the middle. I suggest the following order: This should make comparision of armor stats simpler (either concentrate on the non-15k section or the 15k section, less rows to be occupied with).
 * 1) Headgear
 * 2) Misc Pieces
 * 3) Starter Armor
 * 4) Collector Armor
 * 5) Non-15k Armor Alphabetical
 * 6) 15k Armor Alphabetical
 * 7) Fissure

- PanSola 22:47, 17 October 2005 (EST)
 * I like the new ordering too, grouped by bonus. There was merit in some alphabetical structure, but with each class having a small amount of armor, it's not big an issue (-: -PanSola

Article for individual armor pieces?
Looking at the Wanted list, a good number of entries are single-piece collector armor entries, linked from armor collectors and from the stuff they collect. Should there be articles for each piece of armor? If so, should the Stylish Attire from an armorer have a different article than a Stylish Attire from an armor collector? Or should the armor collector pages simply make links to [Profession]_Collector_Armor instead of to the individual pieces? -PanSola 09:15, 20 October 2005 (EST)
 * I'd say the latter: have the collectors link to the set. We may need two collector set pages, as there seem to be differences between the Shiverpeak/Desert collector armor, and the earlier collector armor. Presearing I think has it's own set of collector armor as well.
 * Is it necessary to create a new article just because of different art? Can't we put the different art in the same article?  Or alternately, create "Gallery articles" for each art set, then have the one info article link to the multiple galleries?  Just brainstorming here. -PanSola 12:14, 20 October 2005 (EST)
 * The Gallery is a good idea I think. Better than maintaining two seperate articles. LordKestrel 14:19, 20 October 2005 (EST)

Armorer vs Collectior Basic armor, disambiguation or merge?
Short version: Long story: -PanSola 16:04, 21 October 2005 (EST)
 * "Ringmail Armor", "Stylish Armor" etc are ambiguous, since the game uses the same term to describe the armorer armor and collector armor. Thus "Ringmail Armor" should either be disambiguated or have collector info/art merged into the same article.  I vote merge.
 * Ok, so today when I was looking at an armor collector's info, I noticed that Ringmail Hauberk redirects to Ringmail Armor, and I thought, "Oh nice, that way we won't have to change all the collector article links to directly point to the armor articles, by adding redirects to each piece" (since an article for each piece of armor eems unnecessarilr fine-grained), so I actually also added a redirect link for Elementalist's Robes, but afterwards I realized... the armor collector links should really point to collector armor and not regular armor anyways, so that's not going to solve the problem. Finally, if a reference to "Ringmale Hauberk" neither links to an article of the same name, not even linking to an existing Ringmail Armor article, but instead links to Warrior Collector Armor, maybe it's a sign that Ringmail (and other basic armors) either needs disambiguation, or that the armorer and collector versions of the same-name/stats-but-different-graphics/acquirement armor should be merged into the same article.  I would vote for a merge, with one subsection on crafting info, one subsection on collector info, and either link to gallery or have images of various versions at the bottom.
 * Here's my concept page of merging the armorer version and the collector version of the Elementalist's Armor. I picked elementalists to test because it already has both crafting info and some collector info, and at least one pic of each.  Feedback please. -PanSola 16:34, 21 October 2005 (EST)
 * BTW, if disambiguation is favored, I suggest using [Profession]_Basic_Armor in contrast to [Profession]_Collector_Armor, and for links on the Armor Types page, just call the former "Basic Armor", for fairness and consistency. -PanSola 16:40, 21 October 2005 (EST)


 * Seeing how it has been over 48 hours and absolutely no one else commented on this issue, may I be as bold as to presume the silence means "Go ahead and merge it. If we hate you personally, we will revert it back later."? -PanSola 22:18, 23 October 2005 (EST)


 * I like merging the collection info with the armor info. I do not like the amazing amount of redundancy between this page, the collector's page, the item's page and the collector lists. UGH! I also should remind you that for each collector armor, there are multiple levels, i.e. level 7 Ele Armor in Pre-Searing, level 21 post searing... All the way to 60. So, that's going to make the page pretty huge with all the collector info for each armor level. Perhaps we just list Collector Armor by level (i.e. Ele Collector Armor Level 39, Ele Collector Armor Level 60) and then link to small articles that have the collectors of each armor. Not going to fix the redundancy but at least more presentable. --Karlos 15:13, 24 October 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, the elementalist page only had AL60 cuz that's what the current page contains. I've been updating Mesmer collector and headgear info, and the headgear pretty much presents the same issue because the armorer and collector info are already in the same page.  Redundency of info is the cost of less clicks for lookups, not always easy to find a balance.  Once I fully compile the Mesmer headgear info and collector armor info, I'll work on merging them in a presentable format. -PanSola 17:33, 24 October 2005 (EST)


 * Oh, and on the note of reducing redundency, I suggest for the collector info, only list what is needed for the trade. The item's own article does say which collector and where to get the armor. -PanSola 17:37, 24 October 2005 (EST)


 * I vote for merge too. I treated crafter helmets and collector helmets in the same article for Warrior Headgear, and although I didn't look at PanSola's design before, my table looks very similar. --Tetris L 00:26, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * For another example, check what I've done to Ringmail Armor. --Tetris L 02:42, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * Looks great, especially the region idea! I would suggest put "What to collect" as entries in the table though, as opposed to "Who the collector is".  Most of the time ppl care about what to keep and what to sell off more.  Once they have collected enough of the items, they can click on the item's link to see which collectors take them and offers what, and it shouldn't be hard to find their armor from there. -PanSola 09:14, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, looks very nice. And I would suggest having both (Collectable and Collector) in the data cell. i.e.
 * Savich: 5 Fetic Carapaces (or whatver)
 * --Karlos 15:38, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * I've revamped Stylish Armor following Tetris L's example with my own twists. I didn't put the collector in the data cell, because I still feel like that's a secondary information that can easily be looked up from clicking on the collectable's link anyways.  Leave me feedback (-: -PanSola 16:02, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * Place a note at the top of the table that says: "To find out where the collectors for each item are, click on the item's name" or something to that meaning. Other than that, it looks cool, I agree that players probably care about what they shoudl collect first rather than who to give it to. --Karlos 17:09, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * I'd prefer to do it the other way round: List the collectors and let people click the collector name for details about his location and what items he wants.
 * On a side note, there is one minor problem with covering collector armor in an other article: Collector armor looks different than the crafter armor set with the same name, for all professions. For example the Ringmail Armor from collectors doesn't look like the Ringmail Armor from crafters. It actually looks like the Soldier's Armor from crafters, but it features different stats. Very confusing. Similar for monks: The Monk's Armor from collectors doesn't look like the Monk's Armor from crafters. It has a unique look instead. --Tetris L 23:08, 25 October 2005 (EST)


 * Eh, the STATS, in terms of bonuses, are the same. The AL is of course different, but ALs are the rows so it doesn't matter.  They do look different, but I thought everyone knew that already, and I am getting that point covered via the Gallery idea (still collecting stuff for the Stylish Armor collector version, so hold on a sec).  No one is talking about mergine Soldier's Armor with the collector Ringmail.  But Ringmail Armor and Ringmail Armor, which have same bonuses but different art, should either be disambiguated ((armorer) vs (collector), NOT Ringmail vs Collector) or merged, was the original point of this entire discussion.


 * Oh! this case then the pages should be separate. If they look different and have different stats there is no point in combining them. --Karlos 03:16, 26 October 2005 (EST)


 * According to someone, some profesions even has multiple art for its collector armors. If the ALs and the art are different, are we going to make a separate article for each of it? -PanSola 08:30, 26 October 2005 (EST)

Renamed this section. To me, Ringmail Armor (armorer) and Ringmail Armor (collector) are both basic armor. I'm not sure why I originally used "Basic vs Collector" when I created this section, but that's one big inconsistency with my own views. -PanSola 00:29, 27 October 2005 (EST)

Ok, go check out Stylish Armor. Aside from not having a gallery for the male armors, all the info is complete. I bet some people are going to complain about how the gallery is organized, so leave me feedback! If there aren't many issues, I'm going to work on merging for the other 4 professions, so we can retire the [Profession]_Collector_Armor together. -PanSola 18:17, 27 October 2005 (EST)

It's been quite a while since I did the Mesmer merge. Seeing that no one spoke up, I'm taking that as the green light to merge all profession collector armor pages into their basic armor page, and remove the link to profession collector armor page accordingly. Most of the profession collector armor page really only has the picture as the only info on them anyways... -PanSola 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why NOEDITSECTION for the article?
Just curious about the particular reason behind not being able to edit the article by sectoins. I personally find it more convinent to just deal with one section at a time. -PanSola 11:32, 21 October 2005 (EST)


 * I see no reason why it should be there, but since it has been there since before Fyren was farming in Witman's Folly (i.e a long time ago), I'll wait to hear input before taking it out. I'll take it out tomorrow. --Karlos 20:08, 21 October 2005 (EST)


 * I would have figured you'd say "since before Fyren was reading the documentation." --Fyren 04:13, 22 October 2005 (EST)


 * I can't harp on that anymore. :( I have been doing a litte, ahem, documentation reading myself. --Karlos 15:20, 22 October 2005 (EST)

Resort professions as per Style_and_formatting
I just learned there is a "proper order" of W, R, Mo, N, Me, E for GuildWiki (see very very bottom of Style_and_formatting. Should this article conform to that standard too?  Currently the professions are listed in alphabetical order. -PanSola 02:29, 23 October 2005 (EST)

should we Revert?
Some anon user edited the wording on the bonuses to be more "natural", which really just puts us back to the unclear version before. The whole issue on the "Armor Bonus" discussion above. I vote we revert to the last version by Geblah187, in favor of clarity at the cost of naturalness. -PanSola 13:27, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * I went ahead and reverted that wording, since that user probably just didn't see the discussion. --Rezyk 14:27, 27 October 2005 (EST)

Some meta/semantics stuff regarding "Armor Types"
This article is titled "Armor Types", and "Armor" redirects here. But for some reason, I feel like it's better to have an article on "Armor", and if necessary, have "Armor Types" redirect to "Armor". At least, some content in the current article are about the basics of "Armor" and not about "Armor Types". It also feels ambiguous what the "Types" in "Armor Types" refers to. At least seeing the names of section 2, 6, and 7 ("Collector Armor", "PvP Armor", "Special Events Armor"), makes it seem that "Collector Armor" as a whole is considered one "type" of armor (as opposed to each profession's collector armor being an individual type), and "PvP Armor" as a whole is considered one type, etc.

For an article that is titled "Armor Types", it also feels awkward to scroll down at least a full page to find the section called "Types of Armor", which is the 4th section, and not having a Table of Contents (Why NOTOC for this article?). The word "Types" within the context of this section does seem to be referring each armor set as a different type, which is in conflict with the feeling I get from section 2,6, and 7.

Is "Type" being used as a very general term, so that "15k Armor" and "Fissure Armor" are each a (sub-)type of elite armor, and that "Enchanter's 15k Armor" is a (sub-)type of "15k Armor" as well as a (sub-)type of Mesmer Armor? Are headgears a type of armor, and leggings a different type? Do armor sets with different names but same bonus count as one type? Do sets with SAME name but different art count as two types?

Some stuff I would suggest, but I'm not going to feverently defend them if anyone else opposes (esp if you state why you oppose it): --PanSola
 * 1) Enable ToC
 * 2) For the name of section 4, use the word "Set" as opposed to "Type", since inside the section we are saying "Mesmer Sets" and "Monk Sets" as opposed to "Mesmer Types" etc.
 * 3) Move this article to "Armor"; OR create two new articles, "Armor" and "Armor Sets", move content from here to the new articles, and depreciate this article.
 * 4) Avoid the usage of the word "Type" altogether, unless there is a clear and consistent definition/use/treatment of the word "type" in the context of armor.


 * I agree to all of the above, I have been wanting to bring that up for ages. This should be Armor not Armor Types. I'll do the TOC change because it's benign, I'll wait to see what others think regarding the rest. --Karlos 20:20, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * /agree! --Rezyk 02:30, 4 November 2005 (EST)


 * I did some restructuring for the page, including collected several sections into a new "Obtaining Armor" section. Makes it feel more organized, I think.  There are still some little stuff that bug me, but I'll fix those later.

Semantics: Basic vs Standard
Does anyone mind if I switch the usage of "Basic" and "Standard" in "Basics" section and "Armor Sets" section?

"Standard" to me implies something fairly common across the board, so I feel like for Armor Sets, describing this armor as having standard bonuses and that armor has blah blah mods on top of the standard. Currently the article use the word Basic there.

In the "Basics" article, the plain armor set was described, and since it is comparatively without benefits, it feels more natural to call that armor the Basic armor. Currently the article use the word Standard there.

Rather coincedental that they are "flipped"... Just minor semantical stuff that bugs me. Mind if I swap them around? -PanSola 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)