Path of Exile Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 3

Gem quality section
On most skill and support gem pages, there is a section header that reads "Gem Quality" and beneath it is a brief description of what bonuses quality adds to the gem. Given that Template:Gem Infobox displays a field for this, is there any reason to also have the page section that gives the exact same information? Not only is it redundant, but people often update one and not the other which leads to a discrepancy in the information presented on the same page. Can we just get rid of the page section and leave in the infobox section? —Vini (t 23:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

New zone templating
I would like to implement new templating for zone info. You can see an example here: Template:Zone/testcases. Comments? Suggestions? —Vini (t|c) 12:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks very smooth. I like it. Maybe adding the adjacent areas could be useful information aswell? Like on the version history page, a link to the previous area(s) and to the next. Climmels (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all areas have a clear prev and next - would a list of connected areas work? I'm thinking along the lines of wikipedia band infoboxes with lists of associated acts. I don't think anywhere is connected to more than 4 areas (gardens, marketplace, crossroads are all 4s). --Qetuth-(talk) 13:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest incorporating the zone banners? Here is the Ship Graveyard banner. Alos, I'm not sure which would be preferable but here is the other waypoint icon, amongst the other minimap icons, that can be used. - FaceLicker (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks great, definitely an improvement over the current zone template. I do like the banner Facelicker has linked, though it may be a little too wide at it's current size. Iamacyborg (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Korean Language Pages
Hey, I've been contacted by Noala Entertainment who want to start translating wiki pages into Korean, don't be surprised if you start seeing these pages start to crop up on the wiki. Iamacyborg (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Map boss videos
Magier556 has previously been putting links to his map boss videos on the corresponding map pages. As was discussed, we reached a consensus that this was okay to do since it provides supplementary content to the wiki, even if the videos are being monetized. Given the choice between linking to monetized videos that have useful commentary and not linking to anything, I am in favor of the first option. However, if other people want to link to videos that are not monetized and provide commentary that is as useful or more useful, I think we should showcase those instead. —Vini (t|c) 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your points. I also still think we need basic video demonstration of all the skills as they're more useful than static screenshots or gifs. Iamacyborg (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Videos
I've just added a video by ZiggyD to the Flask page. What does everyone think? Is this something we want to be doing, is it useful to the community? Iamacyborg (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is something we should include videos that are useful and relevant to the page, but not if they simply repeat the content of the wiki page. The flask one is a good example in that he talks about the reasons and tactics behind flasks, while the page contains factual information about them.CosmicChopsticks (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I totally agree with you. There's definitely some information which is more easy to show via video, for example map and game boss fights are easier to show via video, whereas some subject are more easily explained via the wiki itself. For example, a video showing what Vendor Recipes are and how they work in PoE would be useful, whereas a video showing off every single vendor recipe would not. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That reminds me, I had assumed that the boss videos on the map pages aren't embedded due to it not being possible in Gamepedia, but the flask video shows that this isn't the case. Should those be embedded instead of linked to Youtube? CosmicChopsticks (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's definitely possible, check the syntax used on the flask page, and here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EmbedVideo I think we need to take a look at the videos before embedding them, I know the video creator has been adding those there himself and we need to check they're of sufficiently high quality to embed. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with embedding the flask guide video on the Flask page. It's a well-made video and contains tips that aren't included directly on the page. Can we limit the width of embedded videos to 300px though? Any larger and it starts encroaching far into the content area on smaller resolutions. —Vini (t|c) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm happy for them to be that size. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Skill screenshots
As a new project I'm making sure all of the skills have good screenshots. Right now the following have none: Storm Call, Enduring Cry, Devouring Totem, Glacial Hammer, Ground Slam, Smoke Mine , Animate Weapon. Also I think some could use improvement: Bear Trap (higher resolution to see used trap), Elemental Hit (better view of attack+ele effect), Puncture (show attack, show moving monster with blood trail?), Viper Strike (show poison charges, clearer attack), Arc (clearly show chaining), Conductivity (zoom out), Firestorm (zoom out), Ice Spear (maybe show both forms), Raise Spectre (better quality, zoom out)

We could also do screenshots for support gems: Ranged Attack Totem, Spell Totem, Chain, Culling Strike, Fork, GMP, LMP, Pierce , Multiple Traps. Or whatever. If anybody wants to help I'd appreciate it. Magnanimous2 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Over time I've been working on uploading skill screenshots. Believe it or not, it's requires a lot of effort to get nice looking screenshots. I did my best with Bear Trap, but it's still somewhat difficult to see since the skill's actual graphics don't stand out a lot. You also said that it should be higher resolution; well I'm running 1920x1080. Do you have some crazy high resolution? In any case, I'd certainly appreciate the help in getting a nice looking screenshot for each skill. —Vini (t|c) 11:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Resolution was the wrong word, yeah. Bear trap was definitely the hardest to get a good shot of so far, but I eventually got two good ones. The trick was finding enemies that don't touch the ground: [[Media:Bear_Trap_skill_screenshot_2.jpg]] (and getting lucky with timing but the quality was a little off). Also I tried to upload a new version of the existing file, but it isn't working for some reason. Magnanimous2 (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have a new computer within a week, so I'll finally be able to get high quality screenshots. I'll also make some efforts to try some basic skill videos to see if they'd be more suitable, for example a video showing off Bear Trap would probably be clearer than a screenshot. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just added Barrage, but now we need Flameblast (I don't have the gem and can't be arsed to get one >_>). Currently missing are Enduring Cry, Devouring Totem, Animate Weapon, Ranged Attack Totem, Spell Totem, Multiple Traps. Magnanimous2 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

TODO Tag/Page or Similar Expansion to Stubs
Has there been any thought or talk about adding a TODO page or Addition to Stubs.

Stubs are good at what they are for, to indicate missing information. What they are not good for is telling what information is missing from a page and they are not good for the concept of an easy to read list of TODO's with links to the page in addition to what the page is missing for incomplete pages/tables, for new pages, or new features that need volunteers to get it done. Example: A lot of gem pages are missing general information or additional info and there is no tag or page to show that they are missing that information besides the possibility of adding the stub tag which doesn't tell what is missing.

I understand that the community portal has a Project section, which is good for general TODO's on a bigger level. But I feel there should be a link under Projects that links to a TODO page. The TODO page would be where as someone finds something missing from a page but doesn't have the ability, time, knowledge, items, or etc to test and then add the missing data could just add it to the TODO Page under a fitting category.

How I imagine the best way to implement it based on a scenario of its usage:

If this exists or is a bad idea I'd like if someone told me so. As if it does a link needs to exist on the main page and on the community portal page. I ask this because it is hard to find things that need to be done that you would have the means to do outside of the maintenance category page. It also adds the possibility that for a big update or more complicated one someone could claim it and state that they are working on a particular TODO entry or part of that entry. Ebonmourn (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea to have specific projects to attract new editors. I would divide it into skills, items, quests, races(especially chest info), game mechanics(and making sure they're correct; sometimes people in global have two or three answers), then lore/general topics. Magnanimous2 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this is explained above and I'm missing it, but IS there currently a way to easily indicate that a particular page should be added to a/the TODO list? For example, the Fire Totem gem page is in need of an update for the changes from 1.0.0 for gem levels 7+. What exactly should be done to show this on the TODO page? 777isHARDCORE (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Microtransaction Pages
I've been thinking for quite some time now that the MTX pages need an overhaul to match the rest of pages on this wiki. These pages are only going to grow in the future and I believe it would be best if we get the formatting done now while it's still manageable. This will be especially important for the Pets, Item Effects (which has recently been renamed to Armour Effects) and Alternate Skill Effects pages. Now, since those pages in particular contain actual in game items, it only seems appropriate that we create individual pages for each mtx utilizing the item template that we use for all other in game items. We could also add in the Path of Exile website descriptions since they differ from the mouseover descriptions in game. We could go back to embedding GGG's video previews on the individual pages since it will now be 1 video per page instead of 30 videos.

MTX items use the currency item format in game and so this should be a relatively simple task to set up item templates for transclusion especially considering that all the info we need is in the game data. To give people an idea of what mtx items look like in game, here are a couple basic examples:

(NOTE: nowiki tag added to example templates to stop them adding this page to categories. --Qetuth-(talk) 01:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

The only thing missing is a line that appears above the stack size on some items that indicates whether the item is a Rain of Arrows Skin, a Helmet Skin, a Helmet Attachment, a Weapon Effect or one of the many other mtx types. A quick edit to the item template should be able to fix that. I'd like to ask help from more experienced wiki editors in making this transition especially with the template and translcusion. As I said, all of the pertinent info that we need such as stack sizes, mtx type, effect descriptions and help texts is contained in the game data (the CurrencyItems.dat file to be specific.)


 * I can make the required changes to the template. —Vini (t|c) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All set. Here is an example of the correct templating:


 * Thanks Vini. With Steam marketable microtransactions we might also be able to embed price history and things like that as well which should be useful to the community. Iamacyborg (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I created a stub page for the that includes the necessary templating. Currently, the auto category doesn't work for the "Microtrans" type, but I will fix that. —Vini (t|c) 23:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that microtransactions and inventory items sometimes have different names. For example, if you buy a Gore Weta pet in the shop, you get a "Blood Weta" item in your inventory. Do we agree to create pages for the inventory items (in this case, Blood Weta) and to create redirects for shop names? Chriskang (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Your suggestion makes sense though. —Vini (t|c) 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that odd actually. We tend to mix up inventory items with their effects everywhere on the wiki and it's sometimes really confusing IMHO. We don't have a single page for map areas but instead, we have pages for inventory items like Grotto Map and we describe the content of the areas on those pages. How weird is that? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a clean item page with just: its level, the vendor recipes (upstream / downstream), possibly a list of affixes that the item can spawn (like this) and finally a link to the area that you reach when you put the item in the Lab?
 * The situation is even worst for skill progression tables that are completely misleading (confusing gem level, with requirement and effect). Chriskang (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just meant it's odd that the inventory item uses a different name. The way you suggested to handle it is fine. —Vini (t|c) 14:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is anyone currently running AWB that would be able to assist in automating these pages? I've just installed it, but will need a while to wrap my head around how it works. We've fallen behind quite a lot with the latest few patches and need to go through the entire microtransaction stack. The template also needs to be updated to show the cost of the mtx item, and possibly include a link to a video if possible. I was about to update the Item Effects page but then thought it would be best to do everything properly rather than waste time. People on Reddit are also posting some great screenshots of mtx armour pieces which would be really useful to include on individual mtx item pages. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a pretty solid grasp of AWB. What exactly did you need done? —Vini (t|c) 19:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thinking we should create individual pages for all the mtx effects, and then update the list pages to work like the other item list pages, will be easier to maintain in the long run. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you mean to use AWB to facilitate that. AWB is good for making mass edits based on specific patterns. You'll still have to create the pages and insert the necessary information as you normally would: manually. —Vini (t|c) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can use it to automatically create a number of pages based on info taken from a csv, seems like that would be the best option. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, that's neat. I haven't used it in that way before though, so I'm not going to volunteer to handle this. With regard to the item templates, I do want to suggest that we be careful not to overload and abuse the purpose of those templates, which are specifically for item data. There are things that could be considered microtransaction items, such as the consumable skin transfers and weapon effects. However other microtransaction features like stash tabs have no item component at all, so it makes little sense to use the item templates for that. I am also going to suggest that we might just leave out mtx prices altogether, mainly because the prices are clearly visible and always 100% up to date at the point of purchase. It seems to do little good to try to maintain that information on the wiki. —Vini (t|c) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Drop rates for items / Spawn rates for affixes
I'd like to add this kind of information on the wiki but I'm not sure how to present it. The numbers are different for each item class (those are only valid for 2-handed axes) and obviously they're also different for lower ilvls (you can't get all affixes if you ilvl is lower than 77). Any suggestion? Or maybe you just think it's useless? Chriskang (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's definitely useful to have this information here somewhere, though the best use would be a dedicated calc site that lets people work out crafting percentages per item per level. Is the percentage chance different for every single ilvl? As far as presenting it, maybe a dedicated crafting page per item that lists possible affixes, required ilvl's and chance rate? Iamacyborg (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The game file actually contains a "weight" for each affix and this weight can be different from an item to another. For example, the "Heated" prefix has a very high weight on axes (1200) but is quite low on maces (500).
 * This number is then divided by the sum of all affix weight available for this ilvl and for this item.
 * Let's take a simplified exemple. If the drop pool contained only the following affixes for axes:
 * {| class=wikitable

! Item Affix !! Affix level !! Weight
 * Remora's || 9 || 1000
 * Lamprey's || 25 || 500
 * Vampire's || 72 || 250
 * }
 * You would get:
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 75 axe = 1000/1750 = 57% (1000 = Remora's weight; 1750 sum of all weights)
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 50 axe = 1000/1500 = 66% (because "Vampire's" is not available at ilvl 50)
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 20 axe = 1000/1000 = 100%
 * As you can see, every new affix in the pool changes the pool size at its ilvl. If you add an affix "Foo" with an affix level of 50 in the table above, it changes the pool size between ilvl 49 and ilvl 51. So, to answer your question: yes, the numbers change slightly at every single ilvl. Chriskang (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 75 axe = 1000/1750 = 57% (1000 = Remora's weight; 1750 sum of all weights)
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 50 axe = 1000/1500 = 66% (because "Vampire's" is not available at ilvl 50)
 * Chance to get "Remora's" on an ilvl 20 axe = 1000/1000 = 100%
 * As you can see, every new affix in the pool changes the pool size at its ilvl. If you add an affix "Foo" with an affix level of 50 in the table above, it changes the pool size between ilvl 49 and ilvl 51. So, to answer your question: yes, the numbers change slightly at every single ilvl. Chriskang (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay that makes sense. I guess the easiest solution would be to show all the rates at a fixed ilvl across items. So there would be a dedicated sword affix page showing rates at ilvl 100. If we were to display more variations at common ilvl's it'd be a bit more work. If we display the formula on the page people would then be able to work things out for themselves, or at least provide the basis for other people to build a specialised tool. Iamacyborg (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not too difficult, I agree that the best option would be to make an external mod calculation tool and link to it on the front page. Magnanimous2 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

High resolution images
Do I have your consent to replace all current images on NPC pages with the high resolution versions that I uploaded recently? Chriskang (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The current images are all the same size so they look consistent. These high-res ones are larger, but all different sizes. —Vini (t|c) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the images with the highest resolution that I could get, and cropped around the subject, as recommended by Wikipedia Image Policy, Rules of thumb #3 and #4. I'm surprised to see that a different policy is applied here. Do you ask me to add black padding around the new images to get the same aspect ratio for all of them? And to reduce the resolution to ~600 px of height (which is the lowest size of all renders) so that images are consistent with each other? Or did I understand your comment wrong? Could you please explain me the point of having images with the same size when they are resized on the NPC page anyway?
 * Also, I added the old captures on my comparison page and I really have a hard time to find them consistent, apart from the 250x500 px file size. The lighting varies, the zoom level varies, the subject doesn't faces the camera and it alternates between leaning left and leaning right. On the other hand, the only inconsistency that I can see in the new renders -after a resize to the same height- is with Hargan, who is shot from a slightly lower angle than the other (camera is at chest-level for Hargan and at face-level for the others). I'll correct that.
 * Finally, I have to say that I really dislike the fixed size of the current images. It forces some characters into a ratio that is not fitting for them, like Greust's picture which misses a part of the spear (on both sides) or Eramir's picture which has a completely useless top-half. Chriskang (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I wrote "size" when I should have written "aspect ratio". And please, don't be so obtuse; there's no policy at play here. I'm not dictating anything. You simply assumed that I meant "no" because I didn't immediately say "yes". Now that I've had more time to look at them, I actually like the way the high-res images look in comparison to the current ones. I think you should go ahead. —Vini (t|c) 10:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My answer wasn't meant to be rude. I'm sorry if it was. It's probably a consequence of my bad English skills (I'm not a native speaker). Really, I'm open to suggestions and just want to improve the wiki as much as I can. If you want a more "vertical" aspect ratio, I can try to crop Greust's spear and see what I can do for Eramir. Just tell me. Also, if you want a different lighting, angle or display setting, don't hesitate to ask. For now, I'll just take a new capture of Hargan and wait for other opinions before updating the pages. Chriskang (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the new images. They're a big improvement from what's currently on the site and I don't think the images having different aspect ratios is a big problem. In term of the images we're better off with them being presented as Chriskang has presented them compared to adding a lot of superfluous space to the sides to fix the aspect ratio. With regards to policies you have to remember that Wikipedia does things the way it does because of it's sheer size, which we're not constrained by. A lot of things here should just be common sense, and when something isn't immediately obvious we've got discussion pages to talk about it. Iamacyborg (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanding zone pages
If anybody wants something to do, I think it's a good idea for each zone's page to explain general layout, where each exit is, where uniques spawn if it's fixed, etc. I started with The Ebony Barracks and The Imperial Gardens, and I'll probably just do The Twilight Strand next and continue onward. Magnanimous2 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but not a project that I can help with currently. —Vini (t|c) 13:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

World areas
I'm looking for a simple expression to designate the standard areas of the World. I mean "Acts 1, 2, 3 + maps" ; as opposed to areas from Descent, Descent Champions and Endless Ledge. Should we call them "Wraeclast" (implying Descent areas and Endless Ledge are NOT in Wraeclast) ? Or maybe "Campaign" or "Standard areas" ? Unless there's an official word and I'm missing it ? Chriskang (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First option seems like the best in terms of what we know so far. Descent and the like are all special race events and should be labelled as such. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First option = Wraeclast? I want to add Descent-only exiles to the Rogue Exile page. So I should add a new section for them and rename the current section to "Wraeclast exiles"? I'm not sure if it'll clear enough for everyone. Chriskang (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * First option = Wraeclast. With regards to the Rogue Exile page, I'd create a new subheading there explaining how those other exiles can be found and put them there, no need for a new page. Iamacyborg (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we use different words for the same thing. What I called "section" was actually a new "subheading" inside the Rogue Exile page. I'll go with that. Chriskang (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Iamacyborg (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Weapon DPS
Would it be reasonable to add an additional category to the weapons called DPS that is basically just the attack speed multiplied by the damage range of the weapon. It wouldnt take into account critical strike chance or other variables unless that was a moderately easy feat to do. ExNihalo (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)ExNihalo


 * Certainly something we can look at, I'm not sure how easy it'll be to add that column to every weapon though, or if we can do the maths on the fly. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be fairly simple to calculate it on the fly. For example,  →  —Vini (t|c) 19:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Any ideas on how we could get that to work with regards to the item template? It looks like something we'd need to add there as we're transcluding those individual item pages, but it's probably not something we want on the item page itself. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would think it would be appropriate for the tabular display of items. —Vini (t|c) 19:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a working sandbox model. It currently does not take crit chance into account. I'm not even sure how to deal with that. —Vini (t|c) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some items (like Hrimnor's Hymn) will have to be updated to respect your format. Doesn't look like too much work though ; most items appear correctly formatted already. I'm more worried by items that just require a special math rule, like Dyadus (only one of the 2 elemental damage should be counted). Can you maybe define a parameter inside Item to override the default calculation when it's needed? Chriskang (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently, the DPS is calculated by multiplying the average damage by the average attacks per second, both of which are themselves derived values. The average damage for Dyadus is inaccurate because only one of the two elemental damage bonuses is actually applied. It therefore seems to follow that I should add a special  parameter to override the default derived value. —Vini (t|c) 11:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about AverageDPS but you're right, AverageDamage is better. It might even be used to replace the current data-sort-value in item tables. And I don't think we need an "AverageAPS" as the calculated value seems to be correct everywhere. Good job, Vini. Chriskang (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The DPS that will be displayed in the table is actually average DPS, since it's calculated by multiplying the average damage by the average attacks per second. I think it's possible to factor in crit chance assuming base crit multiplier of 150%, using the formula . Is this math sound? —Vini (t|c) 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the formula at the bottom of Critical_Strike is correct or not but the first paragraph is quite clear about the fact that critical damage replaces normal damage (and is not added). Therefore you should either consider (1) that you don't deal normal damage when you crit or (2) that the damage added on top of normal is only 50% instead of 150%:
 * (1)
 * (2)
 * Both should lead to the same result. Chriskang (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I believe you're exactly right. Good catch. A crit multiplier of 150% means you do 50% extra damage when you crit, not 150% extra damage. —Vini (t|c) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have the crit multiplier, Vini, you could even add it in the second part of the formula:
 * Chriskang (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The formula only counts base crit chance anyway, so a crit multiplier of 150% is simply assumed. Things like global crit chance and global crit multiplier mods cannot be accounted for in any practical way. —Vini (t|c) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The formula only counts base crit chance anyway, so a crit multiplier of 150% is simply assumed. Things like global crit chance and global crit multiplier mods cannot be accounted for in any practical way. —Vini (t|c) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard
I just want to iron out how the admin noticeboard should be used. I don't much care for moving resolved issues to the talk page. The talk page is supposed to be used only for discussions about the admin noticeboard, such as this very post. When the noticeboard gets too long we can create archive pages. —Vini (t|c) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. Maybe have "Open" and "Completed" subheaders within that page just to make it obvious when things are done? Iamacyborg (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For less hassle and to maintain posting order, I think it would make more sense to create a template to mark issues as resolved. I can handle this. —Vini (t|c) 23:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Rogue exiles
May I have some feedback on these tables, please? They display about all the data that I'm able to extract. I'm not sure what to do with them? Replace the content of the Rogue exile page? Create a new page for each exile? They might be too overloaded for a usual "navbox" presentation in the top right corner? Chriskang (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. You could try adding them to the Rogue Exile page and collapsing everything in the tables except for the top two lines, so people can expand a table to see the information? Making separate pages might be a better choice though, especially if they keep adding rogues. Magnanimous2 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection
Is there a reason why this page is protected against edition? Is it forbidden for simple users to create new projects? Chriskang (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * New projects should be added here so that the page doesn't end up getting cluttered with too many things. That also gives us the opportunity to start talking about whether it's something that's important and what's potentially involved in getting it done. The page needs a tidy-up now anyway so I'll change things around on it and make it's use clear. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add this page to the project list. It's a response to the guys above asking for a to-do list. Chriskang (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Supporter uniques
First, I want to know if it would be sensible to create a new category for uniques created by supporters. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I want to make the attribution for supporters consistent across all pages. My suggestion is to do what is done on the Wings of Entropy page; ie., create a section titled "Supporter attribution", with the content " was created by supporter ." The supporter name should link to the profile on the official site. —Vini (t|c) 22:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a sensible change to me. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like both suggestions too. Chriskang (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't mind having a Category:Unique items with 3D art too. This would help me identify item that deserve an high-res render as we know that the list will grow soon. Chriskang (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Here's a helpful thread, although I'm not sure if it's completely up to date. - Climmels (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started adding unique boots, however need to make sure the categorisation is right before I add more. I think we should include the item type in the category, such as Unique boots with 3D art. Is that okay with everyone? Iamacyborg (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think such a breakdown is necessary? —Vini (t|c) 17:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it´s for consistency with Category:Unique items. Isn't it a good enough reason? Chriskang (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * People might be looking for a unique item to use with a skin transfer for a specific slot, having that category available would be useful for that. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can buy that, Iamacyborg. —Vini (t|c) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll change the ones I did earlier and start on some others.

Alt Art Image Naming Consistency
I first noticed this on the Andvarius_alt.png image, and posted it on the talk page there. However there is a general inconsistency with alt art filenames. As I said there, I would like to change the naming pattern for these images to item_2, item_3, etc. as this would A: be consistent across the board and B: serve as a quick indicator of which alt arts were added to the game first. I'm willing to go through and do this myself, I just don't know how. If there's any reason for me not to do this, let me know. If you know how to do this and feel like letting me know, that'd be great too. The one, the only, the Moses
 * We have so many naming inconsistencies on the wiki that nobody really feels like correcting them. And even if we do so, we have no clear naming policy. So nothing would stop a new editor from disrespecting your pattern. Checking recent changes and correcting images/pages names is quite a lot of work and as of now we don't have enough active editors to handle that. If you want to do it, here are some advice:
 * You want to avoid broken links at all cost. So please, click the "What links here" button (in the left menu, under "Tools") when you're on the image page. For example, this is the page that contains file usage for File:Andvarius_alt.png. All those pages contain a reference to the file and have to be updated when you rename the file.
 * It's better if you DON'T leave a redirect behind. This is more work as you have to edit the linked pages above but it makes the wiki cleaner overall. So please, when you're on the image page and click "Move" (under the arrow in the top-right menu) make sure you uncheck the box.
 * Chriskang (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, images are cached by the wiki software so there might be a small delay (~5 minutes) where image are not visible after a move. Just be patient and don't try to revert your change or re-upload the file. Chriskang (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sound advice from Chriskang. However to make your life a little easier, what you can do is move the page and create a redirect on the original page (keep the redirect option checked in the move dialogue). Once you do this, you can work on changing the links to the old file name to the new one. Once you're sure that no more pages link to the old file name, the redirect page can be deleted. Make sense? Doing it this way also prevents broken links while you are making the switch. —Vini (t|c) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a slight mistake. I decided to take the "no redirects" route, but accidentally neglected to unclick the checkbox on aurumvorax_alt.png (or more likely missed the checkbox without realizing). I could not figure out how to delete the page (even when I did wiki editing previously, I never had a need to delete full pages). I tried deleting all the text (the redirect in this case), but that did not work. I don't even know that this matters. There is no information on the page and it says "No file by this name exists," etc. but the page itself exists (the File tab is not a red link like it would be if it were a non existent page). Anyway if someone could tell me how to delete this, I'll go do that. Thanks. The one, the only, the Moses
 * I took care of that for you. Only admins can delete pages. Sorry for the confusion. —Vini (t|c) 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry for the mistake. Thanks for the fix. :) The one, the only, the Moses

League-Only Uniques
I'd like to note somewhere which uniques were exclusive to leagues, partially because my own knowledge is somewhat limited on this subject and I'd like to see it accessible. Therefore I need to gather info...
 * What were the Anarchy Only / Onslaught Only / Shared Anarchy and Onslaught Uniques? (these are recorded on the Anarchy and Onslaught pages)
 * Do these items drop in Standard and Hardcore leagues? (Anarchy and Onslaught pages say no)
 * What were the Domination Only / Nemesis Only / Shared Domination and Nemesis Uniques? (these are not recorded anywhere as far as I know, and the only ones I know of are and the  . I know The Gull was Domination only but I don't know about the flasks. I also believe there were six total uniques for those leagues).
 * Do these items drop in Standard and Hardcore leagues? (the recently released patch notes say they will not)
 * Would it be acceptable to put these on the Legacy Item page under a separate league-only section? Should I create categories for Anarchy Only / Onslaught Only / Shared Anarchy and Onslaught / Domination Only / Nemesis Only / Shared Domination and Nemesis Uniques?

So basically all I need to know is "what uniques were exclusive to the last two leagues, individually and shared?" and "would anyone object to me putting those onto the legacy item page under a separate section?" The rest is just an announcement of my intentions I guess. The one, the only, the Moses


 * Two-Stone Rings and their uniques were also limited to Domination and Nemesis. However I'm not sure why you would add this information to the legacy item page. A legacy item is a completely different concept from an item that is restricted to a specific league. Also, once the four-month leagues end, the league-specific items have thus far been added to all leagues. —Vini (t|c) 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Anarchy/Onslaught pages, this quote can be found: "All new base types were implemented to the regular leagues after Anarchy ended. The exclusive unique items did not, but may return in the future." The 1.1.0 patch notes say that the previously exclusive uniques will no longer drop. "Unique items that were exclusive to Domination and Nemesis can no longer drop." If by "added to all leagues" you mean added in the league merger from existing league characters, then I think this is specifically what makes them similar to legacy items. They exist, but only in limited numbers because new copies cannot be created. I don't think they're the exact same thing, but I think that they're close enough to merit two sections on the same page. Maybe a new page could be created called "Unobtainable Items" or something similar, with Legacy Items becoming a redirect to section 1, and league specific items being section two? ∞ The one, the only, the Moses
 * That was a misunderstanding on my part. However, I'm still going to insist that this is different than legacy items. Legacy items are specifically older variants of items that still might exist in the game somewhere (usually standard and hardcore)., for instance, is not a legacy item. It's an item that was restricted to dropping in Domination league and now only exists in Standard and can only be obtained by trading. This concept and the concept of a legacy item are kind of similar, but not quite the same. You and others are free to make an argument to the contrary. —Vini (t|c) 20:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree they are not the same, but I feel they are similar enough to be in different sections of the same page. I am suggesting
 * Creating an "Unobtainable Items" page with
 * Section 1: Legacy Items
 * Section 2: League-Only Drops
 * Section 3: Race Rewards (maybe? I think it'd be a good idea to have them all on the same page honestly but I'm not attached to the idea or anything).
 * Changing the current Legacy Item page to a redirect to Unobtainable_Items#Legacy_Items.
 * Thoughts? ∞ The one, the only, the Moses 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps. We can hash this out more, but at the moment I just want to play the game. I've been waiting a long time for this. :P —Vini (t|c) 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read over your suggestions. First, I don't like the term "unobtainable item". Any item in the game is obtainable; there are simply restrictions to how those items can be obtained, including which leagues they can be found in, whether or not they can drop, etc. My proposition is to create a categorization and listing for "items with drop restrictions". That would encompass things like the league-only items that were not added to the core game, the old quivers, the Demigod's equipment, etc. It would not include legacy items though. Those should be retained in their separate category. However, the two groups are not mutually exclusive. I don't know that any examples of this currently exist, but it is conceivable that an item could have drop restrictions and legacy variants. —Vini (t|c) 03:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, since can no longer drop, it is one example of an item with drop restrictions and legacy variants. So there you go. —Vini (t|c) 05:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Vaal skill gem navbox
I would like to make a Navbox for Vaal skill gems for much easier navigation on the wiki for vaal skills. Vaal Skill gems Template that works just like the Navbox Skills template is there anyway we can get one of these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fat2slow (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 03 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. I've just reverted your edit for now as it collapses the current navbox, there'll be a nicer way to do it than your proposed change. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His suggestion was not that bad I think. You just have to use "state = expanded" in the navboxes to prevent them from autocollapsing. Chriskang (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll create an alternative tomorrow and then we can compare the two. I just don't really like multiple navboxes on one page, adding a new row called "vaal dexterity gems" below the dex gem row (and for str and int) seems like a cleaner solution to me. Iamacyborg (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds great just thought that adding that would be a good start and we can go on from there but thanks for the input amd looking forward to editing with you guys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fat2slow (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this? Template:Navbox Skills/test Iamacyborg (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty unwieldy. Wouldn't it make more sense to just use a separate nav box for Vaal skills? —Vini (t|c) 19:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That works too, and just put a link on relevant pages when a skill has a Vaal equivalent. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions about spoiler
I'd like to hear your personal opinions about all this "spoiler" fuss with the new uniques. I saw Chris writing several times on reddit that it was alright but I feel like he's not completely honest. It might just be a bad understanding on my side but his wording lets me think that he clearly disapproves and/or is disappointed. I was about to add the last unique yesterday along with some info about the "über Atziri" area but now I'm unsure if I should do it or not. May I have some feedback? Chriskang (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His wording does sound a little passive-aggressive, but it's hard to tell. As for gameplay/item spoilers, how about adding a messagebox warning to some pages and hiding the information with or something? And I don't think the new Vaal uniques should be specifically mentioned in lists of unique items, but a sentence or two about them might be appropriate. Basically, the information should be available for players who know the endgame, but not directly given to players who don't. Magnanimous2 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am against adding spoiler warnings. I don't believe players who willingly choose to look up information on the wiki have any reasonable expectation of being shielded from info containing spoilers of any kind. The wiki is an informational resource; people should use it responsibly at their own discretion. —Vini (t|c) 08:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Vini on the "no warning" boat. A wiki is meant to deliver complete information in a simple manner. Nothing should be hidden for the sole purpose of avoiding spoilers. My question was more about timing and what's "good" or "bad" for the game. I'm quite active on the wiki and it's mostly because I'm convinced that a well documented wiki is helpful for everyone, including GGG. I like to plan my builds in advance, to estimate the profits from crafting and to know the enemies I'll encounter. For someone like me, the more information is always the better. Now, reading Chris comment and some others like this one I realize that not everyone shares my view. Some people think that datamining harms the game, and I don't want to harm GGG. Those people would prefer the data to be collected by the community only (through trials and errors, I guess) even if it means that some information is incorrect and/or missing. This is the point where I'd like to hear your opinions: is it always a good thing to have perfectly correct and exhaustive data? Or does it somehow breaks the magic of the game? Chriskang (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You also have to consider that there are very few active editors on this wiki compared to the huge number of players. Without data mining and active editors like you and previously FaceLicker, populating item data would basically not even happen. —Vini (t|c) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, you have no idea how thankful I am that there are people like you (both Chriskang and Vii) around that keep working on this wiki. I'd have burnt out a long time ago if I were still running it all myself. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording is a little passive-agressive, but from what I can see, the community are responding positively to this (other than that one link but the person seems to be missing the point). I'm fine with adding stuff here without spoiler warnings, though maybe keep the items off the list pages until they're found? I can always ask Chris for clarification on this stuff more privately if you'd like me to. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wanted to add another perspective: I've only started learning how and contributing here since 1.1 (started the corrupted page by copying the unique list code, for example). This patch added many possibilities which, while great for gameplay, were far too time-consuming to sift through and confirm before "community discovered" could be accurate. Where corrupted area spawns overlap, are corrupted implicits changed or limited by magic/rare/unique, where do corrupted implicits overlap, etc. It was daunting, I'm relieved when I see you share your efforts. Thank you. (If you're feeling a little self-doubt or villainized, you could discuss with GW2's resident dataminer. I'm sure you guys would have a lot in common.) Ttyl (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Consolidating zone levels into a single page
Is it a good idea for zones with multiple levels of the same name to just have one page, or would that be too confusing? Right now the pages for Solaris Temple for example are basically identical except for monsters, and they're pretty short. Magnanimous2 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about zones like the Hedge Maze, which are essentially secondary levels but are named differently? —Vini (t|c) 10:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the names are different, there's enough distinction for separate pages. My reasoning was that since people generally refer to The Crypt/Chamber of Sins/Caverns/Vaal Ruins/Solaris/Lunaris as single entities, those zones should have one longer page instead of multiple short pages. The current layout is fine, I'm just wondering what you guys thought about this. Magnanimous2 (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So in your mind, do you keep the Cavern of Wrath and the Cavern of Anger on separate pages or combine them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Vinifera7 (talk • contribs)
 * They have different levels, different bosses and most of the times different monsters. Some have waypoints, others don't. Some actually have a completely different tileset than the rest of the series (Lunaris level 3, Caverns levels 2, ...) For these reasons, I'd like to keep them separated. Chriskang (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't come up with a good page layout for multiple zones anyway, so never mind. Magnanimous2 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Item templating for skill and support gems
What do you all think about using item templating for skill and support gems? They are, after all, items. I created a possible demo of Anger. What do you think? —Vini (t|c) 20:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're going to update all skill pages, I'd really like to take this opportunity to distinguish the different concepts more clearly. Right now, we have a huge confusion between gems, skill effects, experience and requirements. A gem is an item but the effect granted by this gem is not. You can see it very clearly when you have the modifier, from a piece of armour or from . Let's take an example: if I have a level 10  gem and I put it in a  sceptre, I'll get an item that requires 88 intelligence to be equipped and this item will grant me a skill that deals 157–236 damage for a cost of 25 mana. This gem will also require 1,143,783 xp to level up. Try to guess that from the current progression table. It's just impossible.
 * Since SotV, the necessity to have a proper distinction seems even more important: it's now possible to have a skill effect without having the gem and it's also possible to get a gem level that cannot be reached with experience.
 * As of now, I don't have anything to suggest for the format of the page but I can point a few things that make me feel uncomfortable in your demo, Vini:
 * Gem level goes to 20 with experience but it can reach 21 with a Vaal orb. Effect level goes from 1 to 30.
 * Mana, level and attribute requirements are determined by the gem level, not the effect level.
 * The inventory icon for the gem can go in the item infobox but I don't think the icon from the shortcut bar should be there. The later is an icon for the skill effect, which is not an item.
 * I'll be in holiday in a week and I'd like to give a try to the page design at this time. Can you please wait a bit before applying the changes? Chriskang (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your concerns, which is exactly why these issues should be discussed. Due to the itemized nature of everything in PoE, there's a problem with conflating items themselves with other concepts related to those items. Two blatant examples are 1) skill gems and skills, and 2) map items and map areas. Right now, I don't know of a good way to handle this problem. —Vini (t|c) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good and it's a move that makes sense to me, though Chriskang's concerns also make sense. The only thing I'd really want to see is the ability to set a skill video on the main skill page. Iamacyborg (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorization for corrupted areas
Corrupted areas require categorization, but I would like to discuss it first. In all instances that I can find, GGG refers to these as areas (or secret areas) rather than zones. The other places in the game, such as the Solaris Temple Level 1, are also referred to as areas by GGG, but on the wiki these are called zones. For consistency, should we switch to the "area" terminology? What do you all think? —Vini (t|c) 18:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this change wholeheartedly. GGG never ever uses the "zone" word. Chriskang (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I used the word "zone" because other games do (and to mix up the language a bit), but dropping it sounds fine to me. Magnanimous2 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we official enough yet?
This wiki is still called "the unofficial Path of Exile wiki", however it's a known fact that GGG relies on this wiki to provide players with information that cannot be conveyed in game. Can it still be said that we're not official? —Vini (t|c) 03:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To me, "official" implies direct affiliation with GGG, which is not the case. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're correct, but what are the requirements for direct affiliation? —Vini (t|c) 04:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on e.g. Team Fortress Wiki, I would say a definite signal is control of the TOS. This wiki is controlled by Curse. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at some of the most popular wikis on Gamepedia, you have the Minecraft, Terraria, The Witcher, and Neverwinter wikis, all using the word "official". —Vini (t|c) 04:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Neverwinter wiki explicitly says that it is partnered with the publisher, but the others all explicitly deny affiliation. A quick look fails to turn up any record of how they acquired the "official" moniker, though that doesn't necessarily mean that doesn't exist. All the same, I personally wouldn't be comfortable calling this wiki "official" without at least an explicit statement from GGG. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, until GGG say outright that we're the official wiki I wouldn't be comfortable claiming that we are, although the fact that they use the site is gratifying. For example, Uberent claim the Planetary Annihilation Gamepedia wiki to be an official partner one. The Minecraft site links to the Curse owned wiki and forums under an "Official Resources" title. I can try having a chat with Chris and seeing if he'd be willing to call us an official resource. Iamacyborg (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)