|
This page is documenting a discussion about a policy or project proposal that was PASSED by the community with a final vote of 5/2-0-0. Details about implementation may or may not be listed at the bottom of the page. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED, so please do not edit here. Thanks. |
The form below serves as a tool to describe the project. The form is intended to be as specific as possible to what the project is to accomplish.
- Please place all comments under the Comments heading.
- If there is a discussion page linked, then be sure to check it out as well.
- Also please do not create any articles unless all the details have been worked out, or at least the majority of them.
- Once the article/project has been created/finished, please put a mention that the article/project is completed and provide a redirect to the relevant article/s and talk page/s.
If any new things come up after the project proposal's passing, then please shift the discussion to the relevant article talk page/s.
If you have any questions on how to fill out the form, or any other question, please refer to the Project Forum talk page.
Project:
- Developer(s) notes: List-replacement combo type tables created and in decent condition, large table of all powers and their combo synergies created but aesthetically displeasing at present. Sorting feature working on all tables. Input on features and implementation required before voting.
- Status last updated: 10:20, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Page location: Power Combos
Page should contain:
Supporting links or images: Sandboxed page with replacement combo type tables, unified table
Discussion on:
Other Notes
At present I am happy with the replacement tables, although I will likely implement any suggestions on making them more aesthetically consistent with the page or the wiki as a whole right away.
The large unified table does not have a clear cut future home, but seems a useful thing to have and I need suggestions on where to put it. Unlike the replacement tables it definitely needs some work, largely because of a somewhat extreme width precluding single-line notes of much more than a word or three.
Voting[]
Support having a single monolithic table of all combo powers[]
- I get to vote right? Just invalidate if anti-sockpuppet policy or the like precludes it. --46.239.204.130 09:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Elseweyr talk • stalk March 11, 2014, 10:17:43 (UTC)
- Good work.--DeldiRe (talk) 10:25, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- TheUnknown285 (talk) 11:33, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Appended at bottom, per Temp's comment, is what I support. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:57, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Support having individual combo type power tables[]
- FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 12:01, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Garhdo (talk) 17:27, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral[]
Opposed[]
Comments[]
Although I was originally in favor of having the "separate table for each type of combo", once I saw it on the page it takes up a LOT more space than the original text lists. I had been using the page recently to plot out appropriate combos for my adventure with Aria and Nyreen, and I did actually find the original text lists easier to use - they take up less space on the page, and provide only the information I need; the tables used a lot more space to provide no more information. Whereas the unified table does actually provide some new information - the ability to cross reference powers that can detonate multiple types of combo. So I'm actually going to suggest that ONLY the "unified table" be used, and that it be provided as a supplement rather than a replacement for the text lists. My 2 cents based on having been using the page recently. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:23, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- A bit of real life use does make for a handy test-case. I'm looking at condensing the separate tables to take less space on the page. We'll see if they can match or exceed the usefulness of the current lists that way. --46.239.204.130 15:59, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the minimum height for tables in both sandboxes, condensing them considerably. As for improving on the current lists, it may be feasible to indicate the ability to detonate outside the power type being presented using underlines or other similar formatting measures on the checkmarks. This may make them more useful at the cost of a greater requirement for the user to read preface notes to make sense of the tables. --46.239.204.130 16:27, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- In general, I'm in favor of those tables (nice looking and the sortability is useful) but I'd like to see the two different possibilities on a sandbox (Unified table and separated table) before a vote. I would also suggest to create an account on the wiki in order to have a name to refer, it's friendlier. And, by the way, welcome to the wiki. --DeldiRe (talk) 14:45, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. As regards accounts, I agree that going by a proper account name is friendlier and altogether handier, but I started this little project going by my IP address and intend to continue doing so for the sake of maintaining this project's edit history. Call me one-thirty if you like :p. Should I continue adding to the wiki after this project I shall certainly create an account to do so. You will find that the unified table and separated tables are already linked to in the "supporting links or images" section in the project status box for your perusal. --46.239.204.130 15:14, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
First, I like this idea as the current page is a mess. Right now, I like the separate tables far more as they're just easier to understand at this point. I like the idea of the unified table in part because it could make it easier to see the cross-category combos (e.g., biotic powers detonating tech explosions). However, the execution isn't there yet as the unified table is hard to understand at this point. If we go with the unified table, we have got have some sort of footnote or header that explains what some of these columns mean. Do the tech, biotic, fire, and cryo columns refer to what that power detonates? If so, can we put in a cell that spans those for columns that says "Detonates"? Does the multiplayer column mean that the power itself is only available in multiplayer or that it only primes/detonates power combos in MP? TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:39, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I pasted a hastily put together note in front of the unified table in the sandbox. It should explain the columns, even if the note itself could be more readable. --46.239.204.130 15:59, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Ugh. I didn't realize that it said "multiplier" and not "multiplayer." My poor, tired, overworked, grad student brain. Anyways, some additional thoughts:
- I don't think the Notes column needs an explanation. It was pretty self-explanatory.
- Also on the notes column, I would say that it would work better to just say something like "Can self-detonate" or "Requires __ evolution." That makes it easier to understand just by looking at the table without having to read the headnote above the table.
- I would change the name of the "Source" column to "Primes."
- I'm also debating on whether or not the Multiplier column is necessary or might be better served being incorporated into the Notes column or removed entirely as that information might be better served in the articles for those respective powers. Plus, if I remember correctly, there are some ranks that increase the radius of an explosion. So, if we start incorporating every evolution that increases damage, force, radius, duration, etc, we run the risk of making for some very unwieldy tables. TheUnknown285 (talk) 16:48, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
- On the unified table I've removed the superfluous notes preface, lengthened the notes as well as reworded them to make them more friendly to sorting and widened the column to match, and renamed the "Source" column to "Primes" as you've suggested. I do rather think having these multipliers noted is necessary because the multiplier mechanic is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from other evolutions in a way that's very relevant to the scope of the table. These multiplier evolutions only relate to combo explosions; other evolutions affect the power itself. I have however removed the column in favor of underlining the applicable entries. --46.239.204.130 18:57, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
I think that able is a good idea.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 21:34, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
having seen the tables per explosion type hastily implemented on the article i have to say the monolithic table by itself appended at the bottom is starting to look like the only viable design. numerous tables overly lengthened the page without adding much. and it eliminated TOC headers for respective source/detonator powers, making them harder to reference. what the lists need is a simple side-by-side reordering. see the next tab.
the unified table can be placed below the article. a reminder though: the sorting parameters on icons must be removed as they're sorted according to filename, not content. true, for the most part the icons are properly labeled, but you can't really "alphabetize" a picture going by its filename, which can be anything as long as it's not gibberish. same goes for the notes column, which aren't meant to be sortable to begin with.
addendum: if it's called Shield Mastery, it's shield mastery. not "N7 Paladin melee attack". strictly power names only.
|
Source Powers
|
Detonator Powers
|
T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 11:42, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
- While the monolithic table is overall more useful and important, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't like to see the section tables implemented. In the current iteration they've been made small enough that they take up about the same vertical space as the current lists. If vertical space is still too much of an issue the side-by-side lists do seem more feasible. Vertical space seems like something of a usability issue on the monolithic table also, having the separate tables as well may help with that.
- Removing icons altogether would save on vertical space in any implementation of the tables, most likely making the small tables almost as small as the side-by-side lists. I've made a page specific version on my sandbox with space saved in this way. This is admittedly horribly crammed and unreadable. Possibly this idea can be salvaged by removing separating lines in favor of alternate highlighting.
- Currently my perception of the options is something like this:
- Should we add the monolithic table? If added:
- Should we save vertical space by removing the icons?
- Should we implement the side-by-side lists or the section specific tables? If tables:
- Should we save vertical space by removing the icons?
- Should we add the monolithic table? If added:
- I've corrected the non-power name. I take your point on individual columns preferably not being sortable and I've already changed all three sandboxes accordingly. On the other hand I frequently attempt to sort columns of this type in tables I use and am typically pleased when I discover some use in doing so. In accordance with that personal preference I had already employed sentence construction in the notes column that makes different types of notes cluster when sorting is employed, e.g. allowing one to discover at a glance what group of powers requires an evolution to be primed or detonated, or has an enemy type or protection limitation. --46.239.204.130 13:12, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
well, the icons do help people visualize the powers easier. not having them is probably the same as not modifying the article in the first place.
at this point you have a bunch of options you can present for community voting. people can sign only once under the following:
- monolithic table only, appended at the bottom of the article, side-by-side text lists modification
- 3 individual tables only, replacement for the text lists
- neutral on the whole thing
- oppose everything, arr
having both table forms isn't really an option as that's just redundancy and bad web design at its worst. personally i'm fine with how the current versions of both tables turned out, design and format-wise. in terms of reader usability, i'm leaving it to the community to decide.
if you feel there's nothing left to be done you'd better serve up advance notice when you'll be commencing the community vote. as a matter of form. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:29, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes project seems pretty mature to me. Tuesday, 11th of March seems like a good day to start voting, just to make sure there isn't any last minute input to miss. The voting options just as you've suggested look appropriate. Not sure on the formalities, but if they involve more than just putting up the voting section at the specified time I'd appreciate being enlightened or pre-empted/corrected.
- I wanted to suggest making the side-by-side tables feature a section for powers that both prime and detonate with the other sections trimmed of those powers, but my test of that idea seems to be unwieldy and confusing. So I'm thinking they should be columnized as they are unless there's a way to fix that. See the other tab.
|
Source & Detonator Powers
Source Powers
|
Detonator Powers |
--46.239.204.130 14:43, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Very nice work, anon :) I would personally go for option 1, with the two-column side-by-side modification. If I need to check whether a power is both a primer and detonator I'd likely consult the sortable unified table. It's not that difficult to spot in the two-column version either; a three-column listing would inevitably be too cramped and messy to be useful, I think.
- Having experimented a bit on your unified table, may I suggest reducing the size of the notes' text and adjusting the column widths a little bit? Compare: current vs. adjusted – there are currently about 20 rows where (on smaller content area widths) the text is pushed to a second line; this can be avoided for about two thirds of them with the few changes I made. If you give me permission, I can slap the code into your sandbox article and you can undo or modify it as you see fit. Elseweyr [ talk | stalk ] March 8, 2014, 17:34:13 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, go for it. I am unable to replicate this issue in my installed browsers by changing display area, I had only tweaked width etc. according to the feedback from publish/preview rather than any real knowledge of the mechanisms involved. It may help me integrate an understanding of these presentation differences if you tell me what line of browsers displays it this way, so I can read your changes with that in mind. --46.239.204.130 05:47, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I should've mentioned I primarily use Chrome and Firefox, latest versions. Because the width of the content area (the blue, transparent area on this wiki) can range from 700 to 1270 pixels depending on screen resolution and user preference, percentage-width coding is generally preferable, just like you've done. Unfortunately preview mode doesn't always represent the actual result -- in this case, for instance, the sortability along with the icons are missing -- so creating good-looking and flexible tables can be a bit of a challenge.
- Anyways, here's what I see with max squashedness (greater widths look fine to me):
- On Chrome the text could be pushed to a second row on over 30 table rows in total, which didn't look very tidy. I don't know why some of the border lines disappear on Firefox and whether this is some issue on my end, but everything else looks good. Hope this helps! Elseweyr talk • stalk March 9, 2014, 17:34:39 (UTC)
Just to weight my opinion, I'm definitly in favor of the unified table. It's clearer and it gives an added value to the page (which is not the case with separated tables). Good work on this project btw. --DeldiRe (talk) 08:29, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Input on improvements has trickled out. Initiating scheduled voting. --46.239.204.130 09:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)