User talk:LordBiro/Archive/Profession icons

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Class Icons[edit source]

hi, could you mail me the original files for the class icons please? I really like them. I currently work on a graphical Java tool for guildwars and would like to use and adapt them :)

Address is, removing the obvious excess letters. Thanks a bunch! Roland of Gilead 08:13, 28 Jul 2005 (EST)

Class Icons - Transparency[edit source]

Hello LordBiro, I understand that you created the Class Icons? Since lately Guildwiki is using more and more colors on the background to signify the different classes, would it be a possibility (or an 'improvement') to change the Class Icons so they would have a transparent background, instead of the grey they use currently? TIA --CoRrRan 17:24, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

In the case of Internet Exploder they have grey backgrounds because Microsoft is ... well ... Microsoft. They would need to be gifs in order to be transparent in that browser. | Chuiu 17:54, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
Ah, didn't notice that. At work I use IE (not much else available), at home I use FF. gg MS. :-S --CoRrRan 18:26, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

Rit icon[edit source]

i just ran into an interesting problem with the formatting of Unique items list (Factions), the Rt icon is too short and it's throwing off the table layout. since you're draft2 icons are undoubtedly going to be the next version, could you center the icons on a standard sized transparency to prevent this style of formatting wierdness? --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 12:11, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

I've updated the icon. The only problem I foresee now is that, even if I pad every icon so that it meets 36x36, the Paragon icon is very wide and at the size in draft 2 it would be 46 pixels wide, including the shadow. I can trim a few pixels off that, but probably not 10. What do you think? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:56, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
I think we should be able to standardize the profession icon size. I don't see any reason to limit ourselves to having that standard be 36x36, we could set our own standard to whatever size works; using a 36 height with a 46 width for all icons should work just as well, shouldn't it? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:20, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
i don't think a square box matters so much, as long as it is the same box so they can be inserted uniformly. it's ANet's fault, stupid wrong-aspect-ness-ritualist-icon. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 13:45, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
I think the problem with the paragon icon is that the current draft is too fat (I've already told you how much I love your work, I'm allowed a little criticism too, right? ;)). Methinks the (hexagon?) base shape is too wide and it wouldn't hurt to snip a good portion of it, bringing the total shape more towards a bird and less towards a Lego with wings. With my limited GIMP-skills, I've made something that slightly resembles what I mean, for reference: Para36x36.png. All I did was cut out the center 5 pixels, crop and resize to 36x36. -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 15:33, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
That's fair enough Bishop, but what about when you consider the flower cut-out as well? You lose some detail when you try and get that much detail in a 36x36 block.
Besides, I really wanted it to look like a hexagon with wings. Seriously. :P
If you want to continue playing with the shape Bishop then I would suggest that you presume that draft 2 of the Paragon icon is going to be used. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 17:14, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
isn't it supposed to be a shield with wings? that seems like an ideal icon for a holy commander. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 17:19, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
Initially I started working from that, but it looked very much like a Warrior icon with some wings shoved on it. And I didn't think that was good enough. So I thought, you know, a hexagon shape would be cool. So there you go! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 17:26, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
i still think it looks like a shield, maybe one of those Ornate Shields. whatever. i like it.--Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 17:35, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
Well, uh, I didn't work from the cutout shape because while I think it looks really great at the large size, it looks like someone shot a whole through the icon at the smaller sizes. In other words, it is detail overload -- there's just too much going on with the wings and the hole and the shape to fit into a small icon for the small purposes it needs to fill. -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 02:53, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

I realise you can't make out the flower shape at the lower size, but I don't think it's to the detriment of the icon really. It does look simply like a hole in the logo, but I quite like that. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:11, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

timing[edit source]

so when can we see the draft π icons in production? the current icons look wierd resized. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 12:56, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm pretty sure that they're already in. Try clearing your cache. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:15, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
The icons have been uploaded, but I guess Barek is right, your cache may be out of date. I was thinking that, in order to force people to see the correct image I could upload the icon under a different name and temporarily modify {{d}} and {{p}}. After a week or so we could change back and that should be fine. What do you think? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:32, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Not sure where to put this[edit source]

I can't quite fathom the above :o

Consider using a musical symbol for the paragon if the wings won't fit, they have all the chants, anthems and things. And another thing, would it be possible to blur the small mesmer icon (Mesmer) a wee bit, it looks a bit jaggy! Great work btw ^^ — Skuld 11:32, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Small Ritualist icon[edit source]

Loocks like the small icon for Ritualist got corrupted somehow: Ritualist Can you re-upload it please? --Rainith 04:03, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

It looks fine to me Rainith. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:46, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
Try clearing your browser's cache? This is what I get: The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. --Rainith 04:49, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
I've cleared the cache and still nothing, and visiting the direct url of the image and spamming ctrl+f5 hasn't done anything either. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:54, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
D'oh! Took my own advice and it seems that my cached image was corrupted. Sorry. :( --Rainith 04:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
Hehe, no problem Rainith! It's an unusual problem to have, so I forgive you ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:56, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

One more tiny little icon[edit source]

Just wondering if you could create a new icon for Image:NA-icon-small.png. It's used in the same tables as the small profession icons, so should be resized to the same 25x20; but as long as we're doing that, I though it would be good to redo it to have the same shadow effect as the profession icons as well to keep it style-consistent. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Done :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:46, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Icon shadows[edit source]

Some of the icons look really off-center. Did you center them around the icon or the icon and shadow? --Fyren 05:41, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

All of the profession icons are centered on the icon including the shadow. I could pad them so that they are centered on the icon only, but that would mean the icons would take up slightly more space. I don't think I could reduce the shadow any more and have it still noticeable.
Do you have any example pages where this stands out? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:46, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Warrior text
  • Ranger text
  • Necromancer text
  • Assassin text
  • Dervish text
  • Mesmer text
  • Paragon text
  • Ritualist text
  • Monk text
  • Elementalist text
Icon center.jpg

Warrior text
Ranger text
Necromancer text
Assassin text
Dervish text
Mesmer text
Paragon text
Ritualist text
Monk text
Elementalist text

In skills where the "related skills" section has more than one profession. Example to the left.

To my eye, it seems weird that the first six share the same icon-center positioning (or close enough for my liking, heh) but the last four are off. It could be alleviated by removing the bullets as in the second column, but it still bugs me, at least. --Fyren 06:06, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure I see it myself. It looks fine to me! But if you really think there's a problem I could pad every image with an additional pixel at the top? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:16, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
The center column is a screenshot of the left column with a 2px wide line down the center of the warrior icon (not including the shadow). --Fyren 06:21, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
I didn't realise you were referring to horizontal center, sorry, I thought we were discussing vertical center for some reason! Anyway, I understand what you are saying now, but the layers are all aligned properly (I just double checked my photoshop files). I think if I were to offset any of the icons by a pixel in either direction they would look even more misaligned. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:25, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Warrior text
  • Ranger text
  • Necromancer text
  • Assassin text
  • Dervish text
  • Mesmer text
  • Paragon text
  • File:1px.pngRitualist text
  • Monk text
  • Elementalist text

Does this look better? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:39, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Hrm, maybe just move the ritualist icon to the right by one. The elementalist icon is sort of "right-heavy" so it might be better to call the center of it the center of the circle that's the core of the flame. Monk and paragon have odd widths so they'll always seem off by one. The circle for the elementalist icon looks about 6px, so it's sort of the same. Also, it's a little late, but maybe a single wing for paragon? Or double wings in profile (as opposed to spread). Hope you don't mind the table floatiness; I'm trying to not make your talk page huge vertically. --Fyren 06:59, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
I've moved the ritualist icon to the right by one. The others all look ok to me. I'll consider revising the Paragon icon, but I really want it to be as similar as possible to the original sized paragon icon, and I'd rather not remove a wing from either. I might upload a draft if it looks good though :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:29, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
For the paragon, I meant just a wing (or two) with no shield/hexagon. The ranger icon's already pretty far off from the game's icon, anyway. Or maybe just a white/gold hexagon. I probably should have complained more about the width when it was being discussed before, heh. --Fyren 07:35, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Reusing Icons?[edit source]

Hey LordBiro,

Your Profession Icons are fantastic! They have definitely set an ultimate in standards for representing our character classes. I am building a database driven PHP based Alliance Roster system for my alliance (with intention of making it open source for the community) and was wondering if I could use your icons in my roster system... What sort of a disclaimer/copyright notice would I need to add to the site to reference to your graphics?

Thanks! Nightshade 00:33, 26 October 2006 (CDT) Nightshade

Hey Nightsade, I'm glad you like them :) They are released under the Creative Commons attribution share-alike license so anything which makes this clear and which points back to my home page would be great :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:57, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Categorising prof icons[edit source]

You beat me to half of them :p - you left the wrong comment though "redirecting" where actually you placed them into categories. (p.s. nice icons) Biscuits (talk Biscuit.png contribs) 13:01, 26 November 2006 (CST)

Hey Biscuits :) I didn't add any comment, I think MediaWiki just added those in by itself. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:20, 26 November 2006 (CST)
Oh, OK ^ ^ Biscuits (talk Biscuit.png contribs) 13:25, 26 November 2006 (CST)

Profession Icons[edit source]

Hey LordBiro. Compliments to all your icon work on the site, it really makes things easier to look at, and the logo rocks too. I have one small request, since you are the creator of the profession icons. Would it be possible at all to create them with a transparent background instead of grey? I think it would look a lot better on the site's white background or on user's pages when using coloured backgrounds. I don't know much about graphic design so maybe this is a difficult thing to accomplish. Anyway, just a small request, I still love the look of the profession icons. Cheers. :) -- BrianG 10:33, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The icon backgrounds ARE trasparent, not grey. The grey is generated by Internet Explorer 6, so you should consider upgrading to IE7 or if you are really wise, download Firefox or Opera. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Aha! That makes more sense, since I thought I had seen them showing up properly before. I use Firefox at home but at work we have IE. I didn't think to wait and check them out at home. Thanks for the explanation Gem, and please disregard my request LordBiro. Keep up the great icon work. -- BrianG 12:41, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Consider it disregarded! :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:05, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Icon for multiple/all professions[edit source]

Is there an icon for situations where a thing is for more than one profession? For example in an info-box when you put professions, sometimes it says no profession and you use the NA-icon.png. But what can be used when something is for all professions? Something that means not applicable doesn't really fit. So I thought I'd ask you if there was anything already around. - BeXoR Bexor.png 09:07, 19 January 2007 (CST)

The only one of which I'm aware is the NA icon via {{x}}. But, most info boxes will allow you to enter more than one profession icon. I think that's what I've seen used for some in the past. Which article's info box are you asking about? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I think Bexor means a situation where a skill or item is useable by any profession. In this instance there is no icon that I'm aware of that would apply. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:50, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Yep, that is what I mean. The NA icon is fine when it has no profession attached, but this is for an insignia that is used by all professions. It's for the new armor function box btw. I don't know what the solution would be for this situation. I suppose it can be left blank? The box just currently has no way to override the icon usage but it can be changed. Wanted to check first. :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 13:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Use the NA icon, it's the best and generally understood. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2007 (CST)