Talk:List of Prophecies unique items

Style update
I've carried out a big update to this page, trying to get all the tables laid out consistently using a similar nomenclature. I've added "Replicable" columns to the Warrior and Ranger weapons in line with the other tables, but I've not completed them as I don't play much as either of these classes. Where replicable was "PvE only" I've changed it to "No" - I've taken replicable to refer to the creation of Nightfall PvE weapons (e.g. can this weapon be replicated by a normal weapon of that type with an empty inscription slot) - arguably this should be changed to whether it can be created as a PvP weapon (subtle difference, such as Focus Core of Swiftness not being available - I've not checked if this would actually change anything). I've also shifted the unique bonuses to the "inherent" column for weapons that can't be replicated (for example, where a weapon has the equivalent of two inscriptions, or a suffix upgrade that doesn't apply to that class of weapon). The order of weapons has been switched to Stave -> Wand -> Focus, in order to help people pair wands and focus items if they're looking for a set.

Comments? Suggestions? If nobody objects I'll update the other quick refs (campaign and profession) when I get round to it, then have a go at the weapon smiths. --NieA7 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Actually "PvE only" refers to replicability with any crafted or collector items and any upgrade components obtained in PvE in any of the campaigns. I don't see why PvE-replicability information should be omitted. I'd also prefer it if staves were in the middle, so they could be compared with wands and focus items more easily. -- Gordon Ecker 04:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The staves thing is 50/50, I'm not sure which approach is better but having them at the top (or bottom) seems more logical - you can't ever pair a staff with a wand or a focus so it makes more sense to me to have wands and foci next to each other.
 * It's not so much omitting information as my being unsure that they could be replicated anywhere. The three down as PvE only were:
 * Kepkhet's Refuge (DF staff), Fire, HSR 20%, Energy +5, HCT Protection, Enchanting
 * Bortak's Bone Claw (DM wand), Cold, -, -, Energy +5 while Health > 50%, HCT Death
 * Handsmasher (Dom staff), Chaos, HSR 20%, Energy +5, HCT Inspiration, Health +30
 * Can you get Divine Favor and Domination staves with mods relating to other attribute lines? Bortak's Bone Claw has a mod which isn't "proper" for a wand (HCT instead of HSR), so again I wouldn't have thought that was possible. Not to say it isn't of course, just that they're unusual if they are available. --NieA7 04:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * In my opinion staves to top or bottom is usefull for having wand and focus next to each other. It so is worse to compare staff and wand/focus (because one of them is not standing next to staves), but this would be in any order of these three types. And having wand + focus next to each other should be priorised because they can be used combined. - MSorglos 04:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I just looked it up on GuildWiki, DF staves with HCT Healing or Protection are available from collectors in Prophecies and Factions and all staff-crafting weaponsmiths in Factions. A Domination Magic staff with HCT Inspiration is available from Artor Bobani Kiroz in the Altrumm Ruins outpost. Sheco in Bukdek Byway can craft a wand with the same stats as Bortak's Bone Claw. -- Gordon Ecker 04:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * OK, sounds good to me. "PvE only" is a very broad category, but thinking about it those details should be on the individual pages for each of the unique's so people can check there if needs be - I'll add them back to the table. --NieA7 04:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I still think that inscription or suffix equivalent bonuses should be in the inscription and suffix columns even if there are two bonuses of the same type on the same item. I also think that the "Inherent" column was a bad idea on my part, and should be replaced with an "Other", "Miscellaneous" or "Misc", as all the bonuses on a green item can arguably be classified as inherent. -- Gordon Ecker 17:07, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think it might be confusing to list something as an inscription/suffix that can't be replicated by any of the inscriptions that can be found in PvE (e.g. two effects, or an inscription type that can't be used on that kind of weapon). If nothing else listing things like that in the "Inherent" column makes it more clear why the item can't be replicated. As for Inherent, I think it's a pretty good name for the column but I wouldn't be adverse to it being changed. Of the ones you suggest I prefer "Other", though I'm not too keen on it. Can't think of anything else to use at the moment though. --NieA7 04:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I've had a look around and the only mention of inherent modifiers I can find on GWW is here: Weapon bonus. As that page refers to them as "inherent bonuses" I think it would be best to leave it as "Inherent". The other obvious option is "Modifier" (as per GuildWiki), but I don't think we should introduce a term that isn't common currency elsewhere on GWW just for these tables. Searching for modifier comes up with a lot of pages that use it as a generic term for any weapon upgrade, so if we were to adopt that they'd all need updating. --NieA7 08:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The weapon bonus article uses the term "inherent bonus" to refer to any unsalvageable bonus in the inscription, prefix and suffix sections, not just inscription-equivalent bonuses. What about using  to separate the two bonuses on items with two inscription-equivalent or suffix-equivalent bonuses, like this? -- Gordon Ecker 19:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The reason I think non-replicable mods should go in the inherent column is that if they can't be reproduced they must be unique to the weapon, i.e. inherent.  looks pretty good but I don't like calling the column "Other / Misc." I guess just "Other" would be OK, but I still much prefer "Inherent".


 * IMHO, if a unique item can be replicated in either PvE or PvP then its replicable. I've shown how to replicate many of the unique items in the individual articles that were PvE Only.  I think it will be confusing to show No in the Replicable column, then have a description of how to replicate it within the article.  Therefore, I suggest 3 options to consider:


 * 1) Put Yes in the Replicable column if an can be created in either PvE or PvP.
 * 2) Create a footnote at the bottom of the table such as "1. Some upgrades required to replicate the item are not available in PvP" and put Yes1 in the Replicable column.
 * 3) Create two columns under the Replicable Heading.  One for PvE and one for PvP.  Most would have either Yes Yes or No No, but a few would have Yes No.
 * I believe the second option would be the cleanest, the third would be easier to comprehend for newer users. --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 21:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Is there any way to make columns collapsible? Table width was an issue on GuildWiki. -- Gordon Ecker 21:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Rohar - Option 2 looks good to me. Option 3 would be a waste of space.
 * Gordon Ecker - Not that I am aware of. Making the table smaller was the main reason for my tidy up introducing all the abbreviations and acronyms. --NieA7 09:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Colours
I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but the colours used in the quick references were always very confusing. If I see blue I think Monk, not bow. Can we change the colours so that they reflect the attribute/profession? - B e X  23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I have to say, the colors on this page mean nothing to me. --Rainith 23:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Last time it was discussed here, but I don't relaly care where it's discussed, as long as Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Unique items and Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Unique Items link to it. -- Gordon Ecker 23:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yeah, no one answered me there. Here's a quick mockup I did of shades of the Warrior colours. I'd much rather see something along those lines because it just makes more sense. - B e X  00:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Please just don't use dark colors, it makes it very hard to read. Even the blue color above makes it harder to read for me. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  00:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The colours mean nothing because there isn't a key at the moment. I'm not sure about using the profession colours for the weapons - it sounds nice on paper but it could lead to a meaningless rainbow. If people see blue and think monk (rather than two handed ranged weapon - not just bow but staves as well) then we may have to chose another set of colours (current set reproduced below). --NieA7 09:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * {| border=1 cellspacing=0


 * - bgcolor=lightsalmon
 * hammer daggers scythe || lightsalmon
 * - bgcolor=peachpuff
 * axe sword || peachpuff
 * - bgcolor=skyblue
 * bow staff || skyblue
 * - bgcolor=powderblue
 * spear wand || powderblue
 * - bgcolor=palegreen
 * shield focus item || palegreen
 * }
 * A color system that relates to the traditional profession colors seems like the most logical approach to me. You really wouldn't have to have too many colors, either.  Since the colors are just to make it easier to scan, you can simply alternate the colors in a give table.  As an example, an elementalist table may look like this.  --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 11:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * {| border=1 cellspacing=0


 * - bgcolor=peachpuff
 * wand 1 || peachpuff
 * - bgcolor=peachpuff
 * wand 2 || peachpuff
 * - bgcolor=salmon
 * staff 1 || salmon
 * - bgcolor=salmon
 * staff 2 || salmon
 * - bgcolor=peachpuff
 * focus item 1 || peachpuff
 * }
 * There are already light, medium and dark colours defined for all the professions (here) so I guess that could work, though it still seems arbitrary to me - the tables are already sorted by profession so it's not like anybody's going to get lost, I don't see why we should simply reinforce that when we could be using a consistent colour scheme across all quick references. Using the same colour for wands and focus items seems odd too, and what about warrior weapons? --NieA7 11:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * The reason I brought this up is because I went to one of the quick references and it had many different profession weapons in it, and I was looking for bows and skipped past them because they were blue. It just seems more intuitive to me to use colours relating to the required attribute (x-color if no or multi attribute). Even if you had the warrior table alternating between w-color|tint and w-color|background, it's distinguishable, and recognisable at the same time. The only reason colors are there are to distinguish the weapon groups from one another, and even if it's just alternated that works just as well. - B e X  11:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * All the quick refs have table of contents - if you're looking specifically for bows you can just click on "Ranger". The colours are there to distinguish as you say, but I think they do a better job at that if they're consistent from one profession to another. --NieA7 13:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

DPL
Someone should really get the DPL version of this page working... and no, not me! :) -- (CoRrRan / talk) 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * a) What?
 * b) Why?
 * c) How?
 * d) o.O
 * --NieA7 22:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * a) This
 * b) Because DPL rulez! (DPL is just made for these kind of pages.)
 * c) Something similar to this.
 * d) O RLY? RLY!
 * -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * a) OK
 * b) Seems fiddly to get right, lots of template tweaking which could lead to vast amounts of cascading updates. It would help keep things up to date, but we don't have pages for all unique weapons yet, not to mention stuff like the Wayward Wand.
 * c) Doesn't seem too tricky at a first glance, might have a stab at it later...
 * d) YES, RLY! SRSLY!
 * --NieA7 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Change in style
I am making an attempt to bring the unique items by campaign pages inline with the rest of the items pages and collectors pages, as well as make the tables consistent throughout.-- Wynthyst 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Damage Name Update
Shouldn't the monk damage type be changed from light to holy? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Kc8tpz (talk).
 * Yeah, it's fixed now. -- Gordon Ecker 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)