Difference between revisions of "Talk:Powers System"
GuyPerfect (Talk | contribs) m |
Felderburg (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:: It should be okay to delete. The original intent was for there to be a go-to stop for powers information, since people on the forums were constantly getting details wrong. "There's no such thing as Toxic Defense," they would say. "Controller Freezing Rain is using Corruptor numbers," one would hear. We wanted to make it clear exactly how the powers system worked, but it never really got very far. --[[User:GuyPerfect|GuyPerfect]] 13:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | :: It should be okay to delete. The original intent was for there to be a go-to stop for powers information, since people on the forums were constantly getting details wrong. "There's no such thing as Toxic Defense," they would say. "Controller Freezing Rain is using Corruptor numbers," one would hear. We wanted to make it clear exactly how the powers system worked, but it never really got very far. --[[User:GuyPerfect|GuyPerfect]] 13:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::I think it's still useful - like I said in the initial note, there are some things on this page that don't seem to be present elsewhere, and at the very least it could be a central or "go-to stop" for powers information. But since that info is apparently lost, it'll be a low priority for me to do anything here. My thinking was a "powers" or "combat system" navbox for pages like [[Accuracy]], [[Damage]], and [[Attack Mechanics]], rather than sticking them in each other's "See Also" sections. [[User:Felderburg|Felderburg]] 03:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 03:08, 31 March 2014
?s
Is this article a player guide? If so, it needs that template.
Additionally, what is gained by this article? Most of the topics covered have their own pages (Status Effect and Interrupt Time for example) and this page is woefully incomplete. I would suggest a revamp of this page, making it something much more general with links to specific articles. Certain things, especially those without their own page, can & should stay here, but most everything else can link to the specific article after a short definition.
Now, one issue is that there doesn't seem to be an over-arching thing tying all the articles about the Powers System together (Status Effect, for example, has a navbox dealing only with status effects, not combat in general). I would suggest that a revamp of this page accompanies a grander tying-together of combat pages.
Then again, that might not be necessary - I don't know. But it seems to me that having the Status Effect article not really tied in a meaningful way through links or a category to something like Attack Mechanics is not ideal. Perhaps that's all that's needed - a category for all these things. Felderburg 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, it looks like it was a project of Guy Perfect and Codewalker. I sent them a message pointing them to this for possible comment. My impression is that it's an abandoned project. Given it's level of incompleteness and duplication, I'd personally vote for deletion unless one of them chimes in to keep it. -- Sekoia 00:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- It should be okay to delete. The original intent was for there to be a go-to stop for powers information, since people on the forums were constantly getting details wrong. "There's no such thing as Toxic Defense," they would say. "Controller Freezing Rain is using Corruptor numbers," one would hear. We wanted to make it clear exactly how the powers system worked, but it never really got very far. --GuyPerfect 13:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's still useful - like I said in the initial note, there are some things on this page that don't seem to be present elsewhere, and at the very least it could be a central or "go-to stop" for powers information. But since that info is apparently lost, it'll be a low priority for me to do anything here. My thinking was a "powers" or "combat system" navbox for pages like Accuracy, Damage, and Attack Mechanics, rather than sticking them in each other's "See Also" sections. Felderburg 03:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)