Difference between revisions of "Talk:Weekly Strike Target"

Revision as of 19:45, 29 April 2011

Abbreviation

Requesting a new abbreviation for Weekly Task Force... honestly I don;t wanna be getting tells like this:

[Tell]averagejoehero:WTF?

Maybe Task Force of the Week (TFW) would be better as a global recommendation for abbreviation. just a thought.Joshex 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, WST is the proper official abbreviation based on the term that was handed to us by the developers. The alternate abbreviations are in frequent use throughout the community, meaning that only the community-at-large really has the power to change that. --Eabrace 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Past Strike Targets?

At what point do we start removing "Past Strike Targets"? The list is going to get long pretty quickly if we add another line every week. SpaceNut 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be removed immediately. I don't see it holding much historical significance. --GuyPerfect 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The only use I really see the list serving is in the case where someone is asking, "When can I expect my favorite TF to be the WST?" and the answer is, "It already was the WST <X> weeks ago." Perhaps if we want to preserve those dates, it would be better to indicate in an already existing table the last time a given TF was the WST. (Maybe here or in a "Historical" section in the individual TF's main article, for example.) --Eabrace 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Badge Awarded	Task Force Name	Contact	Min Size	Level Range	Merits	Missions	WST Date	Notes
	The Rule of Three	Positron	3	10 to 15	11	7	N/A	Accolade requirement for Positron's Ally and Task Force Commander.
	Dam Hero	Positron	3	11 to 16	15	7	N/A	Accolade requirement for Positron's Ally and Task Force Commander.
	The Fall of the Clockwork King	Synapse	4	15 to 20	58	15	N/A	Accolade requirement for Task Force Commander.
	Clamor and Destruction	Sister Psyche	5	20 to 25	50	14	02/22/11- 02/28/11	Accolade requirement for Task Force Commander.

What do people think? Does it make the table too crowded? SpaceNut 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that a Historical section in this article with the some of the above information in the table would be the most logical choice. A mention should be made in the Task Force article that Weekly Strike history can be found here. That said, I'm not sure it would be necessary to display any information other than the Task Force name, the last Weekly Strike Target date, and possibly the badge icon just for visual clarity. An alternate possibility would be to display the abridged version of the table I described here and additionally add the Weekly Strike Target column on the Task Force page.

One significant reason I feel that the information should at least be present in this article as well, if not only here, is that its more convenient to only have to check one article for the relevant dates, rather than both the separate Task Force and Strike Force articles, if you're interested in both Heroes and Villains. Draeth Darkstar 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like tables. I like data-lists available in one centralized location if possible. To that end, I made a suggestion. The usage would be to replace the text list with tables. (I like tables.)

• Add a new line to the bottom of the appropriate table(s) when an activity is made a strike target for the first time (e.g. when the Tin Mage TF is moved to Past, put it on a new line at the bottom)
• Add a new line to the bottom and remove the old line when an activity has been a WST before (e.g. remove the 3/15 ITF when the 4/5 ITF is moved to Past, put the 4/5 ITF on a new line at the bottom)

That way, the default view is oldest to newest, but you can still sort by other columns if you wanted. ~ AGGE talk/cons 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a reasonable solution to me. May I offer a counter-suggestion that instead of two separate tables it be just one of the form of Date - Hero Activity - Hero Contact - Villain Activity - Villain Contact? Draeth Darkstar 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could have it in a table, and also keep it in a hide template or something if people are worried about it eventually getting too long. As for why to keep it, it's historical - otherwise we might as well remove everything which is deemed history once it's out of date. As for "Past Strike Targets" as a name, I just came up with that because I couldn't think of anything else. Feel free to change the name if you don't like it.  :3 Sera404 03:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Draeth: There's two tables because there's occasionally a hero choice and a villain choice. And it's possible that the developers don't pick the same two activities to match up each time. In order to remove one but not the other to make a new date, there has to be two tables. Otherwise we're inserting a bunch of empty cells when we're dropping one activity down but not the other.

@Sera: It's at the very bottom of the page, so no one has to see it unless they want to. I don't see a need for a hidden template.

~ AGGE talk/cons 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC):::PPOOef

It is my strong suspicion that the Task Forces chosen will always be coupled in the same way, because thus far when it's been a TF and a SF, they've always been the same level bracket content, and we've also gotten the same coupling twice on the schedule now (Sister Psyche and Silver Mantis), but I suppose the only way to know for sure is with time. Assuming they're not always the same, I agree that one table with empty cells would look bad, but if they are, I feel one table would look better. Draeth Darkstar 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the May list this isn't 100% acurrate. Since there are more Hero TFs than Villain SFs it looks like the plan is to pair a single Villain Sf with Multiple Hero TFs (i.e. Ice Mistral Being paired with either Eden Trial or Numina).