Talk:Mission

Question

how do you use the transporter --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.13.209.17 (talk).

Mission list renaming proposal

I would like the current mission list articles to be renamed to free up the "list of X missions" article names for concise tables similar to the one in the Dungeon article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted this on your page before I saw this one:

Heya. I find the names you're suggesting moving those pages to to be cumbersome, but what they're at now isn't much better. How about something like:

"(Campaign) Primary Storyline Progression"

Which covers both quests and mission and the prophecies followup missions, and works with the fact that optional, "epic", and conclusionary ::stuff is listed at the end . . . doesn't involve the words 'list of' . . . etc

I'm tired, tho :) zzz --Star Weaver 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Still tired. --Star Weaver 12:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordon, why the dungeon article? I think the eye of the north page is set up exactly how we need the other lists to be set up (mainly because in night fall and factions you can split off and i think the way the eotn page is set up visually shows the player where they are going and what is going on story arc wise.) Also i am assuming you added the move link. i agree they should be changed but i think star weavers rename is a better one.-- Zesbeer 09:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, a year or something ago our other storyline pages used to look like that, with the down arrows, and were changed for some reason I can't remember. (Wasn't really into the wiki stuff back then.) --Star Weaver 11:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mission Completion Drop Pickup

Ok, I can receive my un-picked-up drops as soon as the mission (or quest for that matter) is completed, but WHEN WILL THE DEVS LET US RECEIVE OUR UN-PICKED-UP GOLD??!! Every little coin counts.  :( 218.40.186.9 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Ryoko Yonekura

Mission starter timer

It is abit late to ask this as I have 1 mission left for guardian title in Cantha however I will still ask :D

When does the mission timer in Cantha start. Does it start:-

1. when all players (or player if doing the mission alone) maps into the mission or:-
2. when the team talks to the NPC (within the mission (for instance in Nahpui Quarter, when approaching the NPC the NPC starts talking or in Tahnakai Temple, when approaching Mhenlo, the countdown starts which).

This is a tricky one that I have not found an answer to and any discussion on this will be useful especially for those who may be doing guardian titles in cantha.--| Moscow | 10:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Prophecies missions and primary Qs vs. everything else

Smiley-1 and I had a little discussion on his talk page regarding the "preceded by" and "followed by" info on prophecies missions and primary Qs. Obviously, the missions don't have any prerequisite, so the preceded by should be removed - compare with missions from other campaigns and other Qs. Similarly, the followed by info of a Q or mission which is followed by a mission.

I don't know if the primary Qs really have the missions as a prereq, that's been too long ago.

So technically, we should remove that data from the info boxes. The playthru flow is still available here: List of Prophecies missions and primary quests. We did something similar a while back with the pre-searing Qs where the info was also incorrect.

Thoughts? Steve1 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless anyone speaks up I'll try to amend the prophecies mission and primary Q pages. Althought I could use a bit of help with the primary Qs: do they have mission prereqs? For example, does Seeking The Seer require to do the dragons lair mission? People have been shuttled to Droknar's Forge - was the Q available even without doing the mission? Steve1 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention taht we did something similar in pre-searing a while ago. There were qs leading into others but the preceded/followed by was removed since they weren't real prerecs. Steve1 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Not everyone knows the mission outposts and being able to wiki quests and missions to find out where to pick up the story line is useful for their respective pages. I've had to wiki the last mission completed in the past to figure out where to pickup the next primary quest that leads the story on. Justice (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Justice here that the information certainly seems useful to have even if there is no strict requirement for the mission or quest. If a mission or a quest would have an explicit starting requirement, then that should probably be stated separately in the article. The preceded by / followed by links are useful to have an interlinked quest timeline where one can easily follow to complete all of the primary quests and missions. Ideally, all the missions and quests on List of Prophecies missions and primary quests should probably be interlinked.

Compare this to primary quests and missions for the other campaigns which are also interlinked. And iirc, I don’t need to actually complete all of the quests there either in order to access missions. poke | talk 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yay, a discussion. :)

The wiki is an encyclopedia. We document the game as is:

THe ten PvE elite skills are clasified as core, even though they can only be captured in one of the 4 campaigns. Because the game clasifies them like that.

Seeking the Seer is clasified as a secondary Q, even though it should be a primary - because ANet made a mistake.

The Hero's Journey and The Hero's Challenge storywise come after Dragon's Lair - but their prereq is Augury Rock. So that info is given.

As mentioned before, pre-searing was cleaned up 2 years ago. If you look at List of Prophecies missions and primary quests FA, UR and ASP follow each other from a story standpoint. But on their respective q pages, the real prereqs are noted down.

poke, part of my argument is indeed the other 2 campaigns. Because there, the preceded by info are indeed hard prereqs. That's exactly what I stated a month ago. Take Tahnnakai Temple for example: You cannot enter the mission outpost, until you have finished the q To Tahnnakai Temple. Temple Guard Bai won't let you in no matter what you do unless you have the q finished in your log.

(There is a workaround in the Jade Sea/Echovald Forest where you can sneak thru Harvest Temple and gain access to outposts thru the backdoor. I don't remember if you can do the missions in such a case if you haven't done the preceding Qs though.)

Nightfall: You can access mission outposts w/o having done any prereqs. But you cannot start a mission until you have finished the prereq. Take Pogahn Passage as an example: Can't do taht if you've chosen MoW, even if you're teaming up with someone who chose Margrid.

So yes, I am comparing with other campaigns. And they are implemented differently. Steve1 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So instead of putting a single note about prophecies missions not REQUIRING primary quests to PUSH the storyline you decide to delete all the chaining quest and mission links for each page? Are you going to add notes to each one about the quests and missions that lead to them and also notes about how the quest or mission leads to the next mission or quest that comes after? For seeking the seer if it's so obvious it should have been a primary quest then just add a bug/anonmaly note. Is the wiki so dead that nobody contested this "idea" sooner than this? Justice (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RL interference ftl ... Then there might be people interested in getting the easy 50k exp from Augury Rock as foreign characters (not some theoretical thing - every single one of my non-proph chars did that). Right now the info on the wiki is misleading since all you need to do is Sanctum Cay and the rest. Or if people want to grab the Deldrimor Talisman quickly.

ATM the wiki is misleading.

This is an encyclopedia, we record stuff as it is not as it (maybe) should be.

SInce you lament the state of the wiki - why didn't you interfere when we did the same thing to the pre-searing quests? Or a month ago when I posted this "idea" of mine?

You might have noticed that I announced it twice, then linked to this page on my first action and also stopped after a few edits to give people another cahnce to discuss and if a consensus is reached that my "idea" is bad it won't require too many reverts. So what exactly are you complaining about?

If the general opinion is that my approach is crap, then we revert a few pages and that's that.

I don't see a problem with the Q/mission chain at all. I've played thru the game before I knew about any wiki and didn't miss any pointers.

In Factions and Nightfall you're forced to follow the storyline. The way the wiki is documenting stuff it implies it's the same for Prophecies. If you wanna follow the storyline, things are well channeled in-game imo and there's this: https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/List_of_Prophecies_missions_and_primary_quests

Steve1 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

While the quest order may not be required mechanically, it is still intended to be followed. IMO that's enough to leave the existing Preceded by and Followed by links in place, if only to help readers follow along with storyline of prophecies, which is convoluted enough as it is.. horrible | contribs 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting initiative. The wording "Preceded by", "Followed by" is not quite clear, and inconsistent between Prophecies vs Eotn, Factions and Nightfall. How can we keep the storyline order while having a way to see if things are optional or not?--Ruine Eternelle 17:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought about that before and don't have an easy solution. Introduction of new attributes for qs and missions besides "preceded/followd by" like "storyline continues..." and "dunno".

The inconsistency even affects Prophecies primary versus secondary qs: For secondaries it's a hard prereq. Steve1 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Steve1 please stop pestering me. Thanks. As for my opinion: Do with the "preceded/followed by" whatever you want. As i've said before i find it misleading and the place in the infobox is for context at best. If something is absolutely required (e.g. for the attribute quests in Proph. that started all this) then it should be listed in the "required" section in the article, regardless of any "redundancy" it may create. Y'all gotta chill and get rid of the thought that redundancy is bad and cannot exist and has to be removed at all cost. You don't write the wiki for yourself. That's my €0.25. --Smiley™ de: user | talk 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Presearing is different. You can only leave presearing by way of quest and to do that you need to do your primary profession trainer and accept a secondary profession. Without looking at the presearing chain I presume that I can follow wiki and bounce between them smoothly and find myself exiting pre. As for why I didn't contest this earlier, I'm just one person. I don't haunt recent changes looking for people to revert thinking I am the gate keeper of the wiki. I found this because I happened to get an email about ruins of surmia being changed and I wanted to see what note/talk someone added. Never did I think someone would actually be deleting useful standard info in an attempt at "improving" the wiki which has been fleshed out for years. Justice (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Judge for yourself: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=The_Hero%27s_Journey&diff=next&oldid=2658514 and https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=The_Hero%27s_Challenge&diff=next&oldid=2658515 --Smiley™ de: user | talk 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I can appreciate the removal of augury rock from notes but there should be a note about factions/nightfall Ascension quests not counting. By extension I suppose a note making it clear ONLY augury rock will count as a prerequisite would still be appropriate. I would probably make them a single sentence note though. Justice (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The info was already there, mere centimeters away.

@Justice: There are now three folks who think that the current way of "preceded/followed by" is "not quite clear", "misleading" or "inconsistent". Why don't you try to help/improve/come up with a solution instead of just bickering about my approach?

I'll freely admit that removing the info from the pages wasn't optimal - but at least it got a discussion going which is something that my original 2 posts didn't accomplish.

Here: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mission&diff=2662371&oldid=2662364 Suboptimal. Share your thoughts. Steve1 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Theres nothing to change so why would I need to come up with a solution? Justice (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> Just so I'm clear; the debate as I can see it seems to be that within prophecies, their is no hard and fast rule on order of missions. Map wise, design and chronology... their most certainly is, but that their is no hard coded mechanism that forces a player to follow the story in the intended manner. This is unlike that seen in the other expansions, that forced a player to engage with primary quests and missions in order, to unlock content as you went. The debate seems to be that the term proceeded and followed by in the prophecies pages infers that these things must be done in that order (which they dont have to be), while the other side of the argument says that a link on each of the pages shows a continuity of story, plot and development that can help guide players along through the narrative presented them? I believe thats the general thrust of both sides of the debate.

If I've missed anything, please correct me... however it would seem that both sides have valid points IMHO. It's not good to mislead authors down paths that are not compulsory and we should be reflecting that accuracy within our pages; however equally the "proceeded by" and "followed by" sections are still true and useful, as canoncially this is a linear story. The 10th chapter in a book is preceded by chapter 9 and followed by chapter 11... but theirs nothing stopping the reader from jumping to chapter 14 and reading nothing before that, other than that it would scramble the story somewhat.

I am personally against removing the preceeded and followed by boxes; they arent actually wrong (just misleading due to conventions established subsequently to prophecies being released.), however steve has a valid point about them being somewhat misleading when taken in context with subsequent conventions and gives the false impression that they must be completed in a certain order.

Would keeping the info box as it is, but adding an anomaly marker to each of the affected proph missions, stating that order is non-compulsory in prophecies and a player can engage with the missions in whatever order they find them, be a suitable middle ground? -- Salome 23:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That only really makes sense if the quests leading into other missions were a detour. The note, if made anywhere, could be on the prophecies mission page. Justice (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And I just checked that page and it has that very verbiage already... https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/List_of_Prophecies_missions_and_primary_quests#Notes Justice (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I vote the best option is to leave the boxes as they are, but each page should have an anomaly tag stating this. It can be a generic one that can be copy-pasted to every mission page. Removing the proceeded by/followed by is the "technical" correct answer, however not the best for the sake of presentation for the wiki or people trying to find said information. Having the anomaly on each page would be the best middle ground to solve this. Obviously, missions that do require things before it or are required for what is followed do not need said anomaly tag. I have always wondered about this and the discussion has finally arrived it seems. Taking away info I am against but adding a comment about it I am 100% for. Leaving as is I am against, but less against than removing the box info. Shade the (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Aye it would be simple enough to take the line that has already been linked by Justice and just add it as an "anomaly" tag for each of the effected missions in the body of the text. (as technically it an anomaly as these are the only missions that work this way in the whole game). That way were taking nothing from the pages, everyone still gets to follow the quests easily enough and for those who don't want to do that, theirs a wee anomaly marker that accurately indicates that they dont have to. This allows us to reflect the most comprehensive data, while maintaining utility for everyone. It seems like a compromise that would give everyone ultimately what they wanted. Retaining function, while adding comprehensive accuracy. Just my oppinion though. -- Salome 01:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the same issue I ran into when I was discovering the lack of requirement in questing in pre-searing as well. Doing this method would also clear that issue up too. As I said, I vote for this option that you worded better than I did :P Shade the (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding an anomaly tag for this to every single primary quest in prophecies seems misguided to me. And while generally "proceeded by/followed by" are used to show required order of a quest chain, I'm not sure why they have to be exclusively for that purpose. I'm of the opinion that things are fine as they are for prophecies quests, and the note Justice mentioned earlier does a fine job explaining the difference between prophecies and later quest chains. horrible | contribs 03:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This isnt about quest chains really though, it is about the mission pages showing the required quest before it in the infobox. And whether to keep or remove them since they are not required. Which would not even be every single mission page for proph, just most. I dont think there really is a need to touch quest pages for this, and we were talking about mission pages. Shade the (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

But the infobox doesn't say it's required - that's an assumption that we're making here. It seems to me that it would be more fitting to change each of the artices' Requirements section on articles like Jokanur Diggings to include that quest chain prior to it is a hard prerequisite, unlike in Prophecies and Factions where you just have to get to the mission outpost. horrible | contribs 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just sticking, as an example for Seeking The Seer, a suffix of optional on the end of the infobox preceded/followed by parameters? e.g. | preceded by = [[The Dragon's Lair]] (optional) --Chieftain Alex 20:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Conceptually, I like this. However I do not see this getting done in the manner it deserves - it would require (an) editor(s) to go through every quest chain to determine what has a requirement and what does not.

I believe there are also scenarios where the requirements aren't "clean" - like an NPC that will only show up after another quest has been completed, but as long as someone in the party has completed that quest, then anyone present could take it (and thus bypass the "requirement"). horrible | contribs 21:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Horrible’s example with Jokanur Diggings is actually pretty good: The preceding quest Signs and Portents is not the only requirement for the mission, so if we understand “preceded by” as requirements, then we would probably have to list all requirements somehow which will be super complicated. If people understand “preceded by” as requirements, then maybe we can rename the two options so that it becomes clear that these are the story predecessors and successors?

@Shade the: “I dont think there really is a need to touch quest pages for this” – This discussion came up because quest pages were changed though to reflect the requirements of missions. poke | talk 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Prophecies primary questline covers the vast majority, if not all, of the "preceded by" tags that aren't actual requirements. It would not be much work to slap "(optional)" on them all. This seems like a great compromise. By the way, The Lost Princess should presumably have a "preceded by" tag - it clearly follows The Royal Papers in the storyline. You could also argue that these quests take place chronologically after Riverside Province (or some point in Maguuma), but that's harder to pin down. Mist Y (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What I meant was, we 2 were specifically discussing mission pages. And again, having some way to show the proceeded by quest is not required is what I vote for. I think the optional one is also a good idea possibly? Still leaning more towards a note or something explaining it more than just "optional" for mission pages, because that might be confusing to someone looking at it just seeing "optional". And quests have to be looked at more closely. Like misty stated, it gets more difficult to pin down what proceeds some technically. My vote for quests would be only changing them if it is actually missing a required proceeded by, or missing a followed by that it is required for. But this is not according to what we are discussing. If a quest actually has no requirement to do, and it has an obvious "story line" proceeded by and followed by quest, should we add those? This is the main issue with the pre quests like I stated earlier. You can get almost every single one out of order as long as you meet some other weird requirement. The "story line" the quests follow do not line up hence why you can just do a couple of quests and leave. So I did not want to really go into quests for this unless it missed actual information as I said. At least not at first until the mission thing was decided by everyone. Shade the (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> I like Alex' idea best.

Maybe | preceded by = [[The Dragon's Lair]] (optional, storyline only) and | followed by = [[The Dragon's Lair]] (storyline only) ?

ANd I would add it to the appropriate prophecies missions and also to the prophecies primary Qs.

@horrible: It's actually Factions & Nightfall missions (and iirc) EotN's primary qs which are implemented with a hard prereq. In case of Factions you can't even enter a mission outpost w/o the proper quest. Look at Thannakai Temple for example.

I think it won't be as much work as you imagine atm: All secondary qs (all campaigns) and all non-prophecies primary qs plus missions are using preceded by as a hard prereq. So the changes would only affect most prophecies missions/Primary qs.

@Mist Y: Storywise, TLP happens after TRP - that's why TLP has a bug note at its end, since it's implemented differently (I know you know :) ). Edit: Ah, that's what horrible meant. With the new "optinal preceded/followed by" those 2 should need that info as well. And possible other quests. Well, in that case I suggest starting with the proph primaries and missions since there the info atm is misleading (at least for some). Qs like TLP could come after. I admit I see that as an option, not a necessity.

@poke: The way I undestood proceeded by so far was: what is the prereq direclty prior unlocking the q/mission whose page you're currently reading / the q/mission *directly* preceding xyz. And not as "complete list of everything you need to do before you can do xyz".

As I said: I think Alex' proposal would be easiest and also best to understand. Steve1 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It might seem like a pedantic difference, but it's important to note that in Factions the missions' outposts have a quest prerequisite, not the missions themselves. If you're able to bypass that and get to the outpost early (via a Gate Glitch, for example) then there is nothing preventing mission access. The quest requirements for accessing these outposts are also already noted in the Getting There section for each Factions mission outpost. horrible | contribs 06:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Never played around with gate glitches, so I didn't know. Thanks for the info.

One could argue that prophecies is implemented like that while in Factions you're "abusing" a glitch. But I see your point. Therefore, I'd be fine with ignoring the F missions. Steve1 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In some cases (off the top of my head Altrumn Ruins — Arborstone skip due to faction levels on the NPC controlled shrine) you don't even need a gate glitch to bypass the primary quests. -Chieftain Alex 06:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Factions missions do make things a little awkward, yeah. Even if you ignore gate glitching (and the Arborstone exploit), it's a notable exception that you can start the missions without accepting the rewards for the primary quests.

That's a distracting detail for another conversation, though. It should not get in the way of Steve1's initiative. For that, I agree with Shade that "(optional)" doesn't give the reader quite enough information, and "(optional, storyline)" doesn't seem to add much clarity. Can we put a tooltip on there to explain it in more detail? Mist Y (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Put up a mockup of this idea here for mission infoboxes. we'd have to do a similar change for quest ones (which is what eotn uses). horrible | contribs 13:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m honestly not a fan of hiding information behind tooltips because they lack accessibility. poke | talk 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently the information is hidden behind the fact that it isn't there at all. Do you have a better suggestion? I'm in favour of implementing tooltips (not with horrible's exact notes - we can talk about that) at least until someone thinks of another solution. Mist Y (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed poke, I'm just not really sure how best to add this information without cluttering up the infobox more, or adding redundant notes to every single mission and quest article (also, I'd be really surprised if the wiki didn't already score awfully on any accessibility test). Maybe a clickable toggleable section? or a new icon to indicate that a quest cannot be skipped, like how we have for repeatable missions. horrible | contribs 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Something like this was what I had in mind for the second one. Still has the tooltip, but there's a visual indicator as well which might make it more accessible. horrible | contribs 16:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What about an infobox at the top of each mission page? Like the new player guide box for example. Steve1 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no harm in going further with the tooltips, explaining that you can just walk into a Prophecies mission outpost and start the mission, and for the Factions ones, mention that access to the outpost is all that's necessary. As for an infobox... that could be a bit intense - it's a big chunk of information that isn't hugely important to everyone looking at the page. How about having a "Requirements" section on every single mission and quest page? This may be a lot of work, but it would improve consistency (many quests and missions already have that section) and accessibility, and would provide a space for all the information we want to impart. Mist Y (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't exact enough. Sorry. The infobox would only be for Prophecies where it's generally the case that you can skip stuff. So if someone is looking for a fast way to ascend a foreign char or go for the Deldrimor Talsiman, they can see that it's not necessary to trudge tru half of the game first. Steve1 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You're aware that skips are possible in Factions too, right? I've made a mockup of what some of these Requirements sections could look like. Please let me know what you think. Mist Y (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We need a decision on what "preceded by" and "followed by" mean. Either they denote mechanical requirements OR story progression - it can't be one or the other and sometimes both. Including notes and special symbols for the dozens of exceptions is just way too messy. If nobody has responded within a week, I'm inclined to go ahead and implement Steve1's original proposal (making "preceded by" purely mechanical). I'll add notes to the Factions mission pages to explain how to access their outposts, as that is the only requirement to start the missions. Mist Y (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

or you could just leave it. Justice (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a mess right now, and fails to correctly document information about the game. I'm aware that it's been that way for years, but that's no excuse not to fix it. Mist Y (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

except it's not a mess. Quest links to mission links to quest. Seems pretty clear cut for anyone who can follow a line from point a to point b to point c. If you want to jump to point n well the game won't stop you and has been suggested is an anomaly or note on the page. Justice (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with my original approach, those edits were more of a wake up call in order to get the conversation going. But I don't really see a good, low-effort approach. Both Alex' idea or a tooltip would be an improvement. Steve1 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justice You think there should be an anomaly for almost every Factions mission and Prophecies primary? When there are so many, consistent through their respective campaigns, they don't really qualify as anomalies. Even ignoring that, I dislike that solution because anomalies at the bottom of the page are not very visible. Anyone looking for what they actually need to do will have to check the infobox AND scroll down to the bottom and read every anomaly, just in case.

@Steve1 A small tooltip or "(optional)" tag is insufficient to explain the complexities of Factions mission requirements. I still think we need to decide what "preceded by" and "followed by" mean: mechanical requirements OR story progression. At the moment they're being used for story, and the wiki says nothing about mechanical requirements. Mist Y (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Mist I get what you're saying but even if we do decide what it means, its been 15 years... how do we convey what interpretation has been decided upon? Saying "go to the talk page" frankly isnt a good option. So from a purely user friendly point, how are we going to convey to the user base, what has been decided? As most people who use the wiki tend to use it for casual reference. -- Salome 20:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggested previously an infobox in teh center of the page, similar to e. g. the new player guide. Why not that box plus tooltips and/or amended preceded/followed by info.

Thing is: When taking secondary Qs into account, it's just a inconsitent mess. For those, preceded by is mechanical and storyline. Steve1 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

requirement ambiguity: potential resolutions

I'm making a subsection here because this is getting too long. Here's all the potential resolutions I see from the above discussion:

1. Leave pages as-is for the most part, letting the Mission article mention which campaigns have strict requirements and other incongruities.
2. Remove Preceded By/Followed By from missions (and primary quests) that don't have strict previous quest completion requirements.
3. Update the requirements section and add an {{Anomaly}} tag to the notes section for prophecies missions (per Misty's suggestion)
4. Update the Preceded By/Followed By parameters of the infobox to show whether or not something is required (as text ex. | preceded by = [[The Dragon's Lair]] (optional, storyline only) per Steve & Alex, or as icons per my suggestion)
5. Add an infobox to the top of each mission/primary quest article stating whether or not the order is required for the given campaign.

The wording of the chosen solution(s) can obviously be workshopped, but I'd like to try and pin down a course of action. I should note that we can choose to implement more than one of the above suggestions. I am in favor of updating the requirements section of each article, in addition to adding icons to the infobox. horrible | contribs 09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. The Mission article currently does a terrible job of documenting pre-reqs, and has nothing to say about the pre-reqs for primary quests. To fix this, you'd need to add a LOT of information to the page, and that information would be much better suited on the pages of the missions/quests themselves.
2. Leaving "Preceded By/Followed By" in place where it's a strict mechanical requirement seems insufficient. It's only the case for less than 2/3 of Nightfall missions and sort of the case in EotN. Most of the Nightfall ones have another requirement (a hero being in the party), so a Requirements section is necessary for those pages anyway.
3. Regardless of our chosen solution, I think it's a good idea to flesh out the Requirements sections so that the actual pre-reqs are clearly and fully stated. It doesn't matter if it's also stated in the infobox or somewhere - nobody should have to make guesses about what those markers mean, and they certainly shouldn't have to delve through these discussions to find out. A little bit of redundancy (having it mentioned in the infobox and the Requirements section) won't hurt.
4. There is no way "required" and "optional" tags in the infobox can be sufficient to convey all the information. If you've looked at my mockup suggestion page, you've seen that it's a lot more complicated than that. If you want to use them as vague pointers, fair enough, but before you can implement this, you'll have to decide how to mark all the weird edge cases (such as the ones on my page).
5. What does "required for the given campaign" mean anyway? The only required mission to complete each campaign is the very last one. You may well need to complete some of the preceding missions in order to get there, but slapping an infobox on those missions isn't going to add any useful information. What would it say? "This mission is required to complete the campaign; there may be a hack or exploit to skip it, but GWWiki either doesn't know about that or refuses to document it"?

IMO we should just update the Requirements sections and dedicate "Preceded By/Followed By" entirely to storyline progression. That's pretty much how the infobox has been for all these years; leaving it alone should satisfy objections from Justice, Salome, and anyone else who argues that change causes confusion. Is anyone actually opposed to expanding the Requirements sections on the pages that need it? If so, why? Mist Y (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless anyone else bothers to reply, I'll start implementing the solutions mentioned by Misty in the previous comment this weekend. This would involve adding storyline progression to some quests that do not currently have it, and updating the requirements section on nearly all missions + eotn mission quests. horrible | contribs 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Will be a boatload of work. But it's definitely an improvement. So let's do it. Steve1 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Good job! Steve1 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)