Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Custom Power Set Icons"

Revision as of 19:36, 21 July 2014

Icons

Blondeshell hit on what I feel is a great idea and added the various Paragon Market symbols to the Power Set articles that use them. How do folks feel about me (and other folks) creating custom icons for each of the power sets that are NOT purchasable via the store? (á là Custom Enemy Faction Icons)?

A blank example has been added already, I will attempt to use in-game screen shots and free images to composite appropriate symbology. Suggestions? Qualms? Reservations? Some other thing? —  Talk · Cont 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I made as an example, what do you think? —  Talk · Cont 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I like. Perhaps a different border color to show the difference between a PMarket power set and a free-to-all power set? ~ AGGE talk/cons 20:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this exact thing earlier today after I uploaded those newest market icons. My first thought was to simply pick a representative icon for the type of power set with the appropriate color scheme, but your idea would be a bit flashier. More time-consuming, yes, but more interesting, too. We could just alter the border to set these off as non-purchasable. One other thing we should do when adding these icons is to update the overviews to say these are "standard power sets", and also make sure "power set" is two words, for consistency. — talk / contribs 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the different border. How about silver? And I have been persistent (trying to be) in making sure I use "power set" and not "powerset" when I have to use a term. If you want, I can upload the PSD version of this that I have so others can work on it too. —  Talk · Cont 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wary of this. I don't like the mixing of official iconography with unofficial iconography because it has a high potential for confusion. And adding a different border isn't going to fix that. How is anyone supposed to know that one border means "purchasable" and the other means "we created this icon ourselves"? You'd have to explain that somewhere, but where would you explain it that people would find it? The risk of people thinking that the icon is from the game/market is very high; remember that we seek to convey official information, and anything that confuses official and unofficial imagery goes against that ideal. If the goal is to include something graphical that is representative of the power set, then I think you'd be much better off with screenshots. (Or perhaps use non-screenshot official illustrations where available.) I do think it's helpful to also include the Paragon Market icon where there is one (separate from the imagery to represent the power set), but perhaps it'd be wise to actually label it as such rather than just including it without explanation. -- Sekoia 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there something more that should be added to {{Power Set Icon}} that could accomplish this succinctly? I definitely see your point. —  Talk · Cont 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be worth it to somehow indicate that the image is unofficial on the articles where they appear. It'd be somewhat unsightly, sure, but it should all but eliminate the potential for giving the wrong impression. --GuyPerfect 01:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would be simpler/more intuitive to see the explanation in the article rather than having to click the image. I don't think the individual images need to have notes because they're already in a "Custom" category. — talk / contribs 02:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That was sorta my feeling as well... there is a hover note regarding it not needing to be purchased, they are in a custom category... and there is precedent for this sorta thing with the {{Enemy Link}} template icons. *shrug* If folks feel there needs to be a note, I won't get in the way of that. (In the interim, I will add a short little note to the template that is being used though.) —  Talk · Cont 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Being in a category is pretty meaningless for the point I'm concerned about. When someone is browsing the power set pages, they aren't going to click the image to see what category it's in to see if it's a custom image. They're just going to see the image, and whatever subconscious conclusions they draw are going to be drawn. Now that you mention it, we probably shouldn't be using custom images for the Enemy Link templates either, because it is the same issue. However, getting back to the power set articles, it seems the point I felt most strongly about got left behind: If you are using these icons to give an impression of the power set, then it would be much better to use screen shots or some other imagery rather than these icons. -- Sekoia 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Power sets that have some physical object-type component (such as weapons) will be easier to use screenshots or official imagery for creating custom icons. However, armors and other "soft" power sets are probably going to need some creativity to effectively communicate their effects and abilities into a single image. — talk / contribs 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we use the screen shots to create custom icons. I was suggesting we use screenshots instead of custom icons. There's no need for us to represent the power sets in icon form. And you're right, one image may not work for all articles, so additional images may be worthwhile elsewhere in the article. However, that same argument works against icons as well; they're only going to capture one facet of the power set. -- Sekoia 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unindented
Put the wiki "W" (like the favicon) in the corner of the user-created ones. ~ AGGE talk/cons 04:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a splendid idea! That's a much more obvious cue. I'm still not a fan of us creating custom icons, but this would make it much less problematic. -- Sekoia 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just created a new "icon" involving a small Wiki logo... does it need to be significantly bigger? Also, I really don't understand the dogged issues with using some user-created flair here and there. The wiki is indeed meant to be a repository of game information, but I don't see a reason to keep anything not found in the game out of it. Please don't decide that the Faction Icons should be gutted as well. —  Talk · Cont 13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too small. Perhaps we should create a template that super-imposes the image? That way, we're a bit more armored against resizing.

Since you asked, I'll try to further explain my reasoning:

When someone visits a power set article and sees an icon like that portrayed prominently at the top of the article, they aren't going to consciously think about it. They'll note it as the visual flair it is and move on. However, it's very likely that a lot of people are going to, in the back of their minds, assume that it's official material. This is exacerbated greatly if some of the icons are official material and others are not. Thus, we are representing NCsoft's brand with our own imagery and (unintentionally) misleading people into thinking that it's NCsoft's representation. Worse, we're doing so with images that may not even be as good as theirs. Some of the artwork I've seen uploaded for these so far is nice, but some of them to me aren't up to the same level as what the game is using. That is perhaps a harsh statement, but it's subjectively true. And even if they're up to the same level, that doesn't mean they perfectly match the style; the ones I've looked at have done a reasonably good job so far, but who's to say that will continue with the harder ones? In my mind, we're not providing official information at this point. We're using unofficial, fan-created artwork to visually represent the game and that is not Paragon Wiki's purpose. There are places where fan-created artwork can be useful on the wiki (such as the icons for rarity). But in my opinion, this is not one of those places. And unlike the rarity icons, these are not being used to represent something in short-hand; they're simply visual flair. But really, the key point here is, City of Heroes is NCsoft's brand, and it's wholly inappropriate for us to introduce imagery that people are going to think officially represents their brand, and even worse, imagery that may not represent their brand as well as they would. As long as it's very clear that it's fan-created, that's not an issue. But if we can't be exceedingly clear on that, then I think we are out of line. And thus far, we are not exceedingly clear on that; it has to be clear to the casual user who reads a single power set article, not just the power editor who clicks on the image and views it full-size or who looks at its categories.

There's also the fact that we're not all going to agree on how to represent these things. For instance, while I think the icons for Fiery Aura and Claws are both good, I don't think the icons for Fire Control or Will Power represent their sets clearly. Who's to say you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa? Who are any of us to decide which of those images should represent the power set, even if we do find a way to make it clear they're custom? Is this really something we want to hash out? Frankly, it's probably something that won't get hashed out because most people won't want to complain, no matter how badly they think an icon matches the set or even how badly the icons looks period. Most people don't like to criticize artwork because it's so hard to make and we want to appreciate people's artistic efforts. Plus in this case, there's going to a be a ton of them. That means it's even more likely that we're going to end up with icons that poorly represent sets, and it's also very likely that we'll end up with icons that don't match the style or aren't "as good" otherwise. Perhaps that is also a harsh statement, but we shouldn't ignore harsh truths if it's going to compromise the wiki.

The compounding factor here is that these icons really aren't needed. We've done well without them for years and years. Yes, they add a nice visual flair, but that isn't a compelling reason to go against the above paragraphs. Perhaps they're also mildly helpful in giving a "feel" for the power set in some cases, but the benefit is mild there and I think it's very likely that many of the icons are going to fail at that, especially for the harder sets; if we really want to give a feel for the power sets, there are better ways than icons. The only reason we started including icons on the power set pages is because the Paragon Market has icons for the ones they sell. And the reason they have icons is because that's how the store works. They didn't create those icons because the power sets, of themselves, needed icons. They didn't create those icons because they were trying to broadly depict what the power sets are. If either of those were the case, they'd be using them in the power set selection screens. They simply created them so that the purchasable power sets would have something distinct and eye-catching next to their names in the market, because that's how the market works and it makes for more sales. That's not a compelling reason for us to start doing all of this.

To be clear: I'm not arguing we should keep all non-game imagery off the wiki. There are places where it's appropriate, and there are places where it's inappropriate. This is a place where I feel it's inappropriate. Hopefully the previous paragraphs clarify that.

Regarding the Faction Icons: they aren't displayed prominently at the top of the enemy group articles like these icons are. They're small and unobtrusive and it's hard to even see much detail on them in the articles where they are used. So the level of harm there is much diminished. I also think it's more clear that those icons aren't official. You don't encounter icons like that anywhere in game or on the website. They resemble the badge images, but an enemy group and a badge aren't the same thing, so the potential for confusion is lower. Maybe we shouldn't be making custom icons for them, and I've always felt vaguely uneasy about it though it didn't occur to my why until this came up. But perhaps that is a case where the level of harm is low enough that it's acceptable to use them for the visual flair and representation they provide. I'm not sure. I personally would probably be happier if we just used some sort of "blank" icon for groups that don't have a natural icon, but I'm not really interested in pushing that since I don't think the issue is anywhere near as problematic as this one.

And in any case, I don't get to decide whether we gut the faction icons. That's a decision to be made via consensus, as is the one regarding power set icons. (Though since I'm not inclined to push for it for the faction icons, I don't think you need to worry; I doubt anyone else is going to push for it, so it's moot.) And just because I can produce a novel explaining my POV doesn't mean I am on the side of consensus. Thus far, I seem to stand alone on the issue. :( -- Sekoia 13:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Figured it'd be easier to show what I meant by "create a template that super-imposes the image". I made a temporary demo at User:Sekoia/Sandbox/One, using the temporary template at User:Sekoia/Sandbox/t1. (Is the favicon image available somewhere on the wiki? I couldn't find it.) This allows icon authors to not have to worry about the custom branding, and it allows us to change the custom branding later if we want to. -- Sekoia 14:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will upload a PNG of the image I created, it is essentially a larger version of the Favicon thingy. (I will also implement it in the example template if you don't mind.) —  Talk · Cont 14:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust my sandbox page. :) -- Sekoia 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaaargh, pet peeve alert! #864: Use of the word Faction. It's enemy group, not faction. They're not all divisions of a greater entity any more than character Alignment is. Leave Warcraft nomenclature on Azeroth. )-:<

For what it's worth, I've always been wary about the custom icons for enemy groups showing up in the contact info boxes... Though I'm decidedly opposed to representing power sets with user-created icons, even though it is fun and I'll continue to do it until a decision is made on the matter. (-:

Any unofficial/fan-made art being used in the same context as official imagery is, objectively speaking, inaccurate and misrepresentative. I won't go forcing my preferences in the matter, but I will point out that precedent has already been established on the wiki regarding the use of user-created images being used in an official-esque context. Aaaand, looking at that, it seems to have also involved present company. (-: --GuyPerfect 15:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth putting this to a vote, or should I just concede the point to the well reasoned thoughts above? I guess I was just frustrated earlier due to how much fun I was having making these. *shrug* Oh well, I can still churn them out for my own use on the OPortal! —  Talk · Cont 19:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

With the "W" superimposed, my opposition drops from "strong" to "very mild". As it stands, there are three people who support (you, Agge, Blondeshell) and two who have voiced opposition (me, Guy) so I think conceding defeat would be a bit premature. ;) -- Sekoia 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unindented
I support both the custom enemy icons and the custom power set icons. Neither one are misrepresenting an icon already in the game, which is what the discussion that GuyPerfect linked to on the Alpha VR icon was about. There are no icons for enemy group icons, and there are no icons for power sets that are not available on the market. Thus GuyPerfect's objection to that is unjustified. ~ AGGE talk/cons 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Not to mention with the power set icons, Sekoia's "W" overlay template distinctly shows they are not Paragon's material. ~ AGGE talk/cons 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I can live with it with the "W" overlay, especially with hover text that also indicates it is user contributed. I updated the template to implement the overlay code. -- Sekoia 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

As you might surmise, there are a lot of powersets power sets out there... does anyone have any great idea for symbols/pictures to use for some of the more difficult ones? I was thinking something like the classic Newton's Apple for gravity control... or is that just a bit too reaching on a conceptual level? Also, while Fire itself is any easy theme, how does one make sure to differentiate Blast, Armor, Melee, Manipulation and Assault from one another? —  Talk · Cont 09:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Newton's Apple seems waaaay too conceptual. That wouldn't make me think "Gravity Control". As for your other questions, I have no idea. I don't think we're going to be able to successfully represent a lot of them, which is another reason I'm wary of the project. Perhaps you guys should start with the hardest power sets first. That way, if it proves untenable, you haven't invested a ton of effort in the easy power sets. Once you've invested a ton of effort in making icons, it's going to be much more difficult to abandon the idea no matter how untenable the harder power sets might prove to be. -- Sekoia 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree re: Gravity Control. I threw that idea out there to see just how conceptual we thought we could go. An outer bound, if you will. That is an excellent suggestion, actually. And, the more I think about it, the more I begin to realize that this entire project might be... well... difficult to get any kinda consensus on. I mean, we really are trying to artistically render all of these as a single image. I disagree with some of Guy's choices already, and folks don't all like my ideas either. *shrug* For all the bluster I put up earlier... well... —  Talk · Cont 15:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about bodies being thrown into the air for Gravity Control? Dark Miasma could be a picture of Fluffy superimposed over a skull to represent Fearsome Stare. Empathy could be a close-up of an arm being bandaged. Generally, I think these should represent a signature power/effect of the set, if not an actual screenshot of a weapon or pet. I'll see if I can't come up with a brainstorm list for the 'softer' power sets. — talk / contribs 16:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Singularity and a toilet/statue/forklift (Propel debris). lol ~ AGGE talk/cons 18:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have figured Singularity is a pretty obvious choice for Gravity Control since no one else gets that. Phantom Army for Illusion Control, etc. Fire Blast could be a fireball arcing through the air while Aura would be someone engulfed head to toe in flames and Melee could be a fist engulfed in flame or a Fire Sword. I'd have to think about Manipulation and Assault, but just haven't given them any thought yet. --Eabrace 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New Idea

I know this area had some contentious ummm... opinions, but I was thinking about this recently, and think that maybe I could satisfy my craving to have articles regarding Power Sets be "symmetrical" regardless of their status as "purchased" or "normal" power sets AND not have to create ever more obscure and convoluted icons for each and every set. I could simply create a standard icon for each class of set: Pets, Control, Ranged, Melee, Assault, Support, Defensive, Manipulation (Blaster 2ndary), EAT (not that there are any). So, a pet set could have a green themed icon with a version of the MM icon on it, a Control set could be purple with a Hold symbol or somesuch on it, etc. That way, there is far less effort going into interpreting the exact characteristics of each and every power set, and instead visually represents the type of set it is.

The only real "value" of this is giving symmetry across the power set pages (each would have a similarly designed icon in the upper left), and possibly a bit of "at a glance" information.

To be honest, this also might be a bit moot if and when there is a sale and relaunch of the game, since there may be a completely different system at play relating to access and availability of power sets. Thoughts? —  Talk · Cont 09:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of using standard icons for power sets that weren't in the Paragon Market, for the reasons you mention. It's similar to the decision I made to use power icons instead of custom artwork for the cards in the Hamidon set of the CoH CCG. Even if the game does come back and doesn't use the same system for power set accessibility, I think there still may be uses for these. — talk / contribs 11:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The only two I don't have good idea for are the Assault and Manipulation sets, all the rest can easily get theirs from a combo of TO icons, and AT symbols. —  Talk · Cont 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on the newest ones I crafted: pets: ; control: ; melee: ; support:

If everyone hates them, it doesn't pay to go through the effort to make the rest. —  Talk · Cont 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far. — talk / contribs 02:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Any ideas for Manipulation and Assault sets? Those are the ones I'll have the hardest time on since they aren't as iconic in terms of representing a particular role. —  Talk · Cont 02:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For Manipulation, I'm thinking of an upward-moving energized spiral (like a DNA double-helix, but tighter) with a ring at the base -- to symbolize the damage-inducing control aspects. Not sure whether the "energized" effect should be fire-, electricity-, or psychically-themed.

For Assault, some kind of energy blast (the origin end, not the impact) but with debris included (thinking Earth Assault), maybe symbolizes the combined ranged/melee aspect of these sets.

You're right, these are a bit trickier. My design ideas aren't as clean as what you've done so far, but maybe they'll point you in the right direction? — talk / contribs 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(Un-indented)

The fist looks a little weird, something about the way the knuckles are beveled. Do you have vector file formats of these images? Felderburg 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have drawn them all in Photoshop, so the only versions I have are raster images. I prolly should go back over it and smooth some of the edges out a bit. —  Talk · Cont 04:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand, now the rest of them are done... Assault ; Manipulation ; Ranged ; Defensive . My idea with the Assault and Manip sets was to use a darker color of the respective AT's primary set, and an icon that represented the only ATs to use the sets (something akin to Build Up for Manip, and a version of the Dom AT symbol for Assault). For Defensive I went with a resist damage symbol since the shield was in use for Support. For Ranged I used an interpretation of the symbol used in the Character Creator's "Playstyle" menu.

Final thoughts? —  Talk · Cont 15:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

While I was at it, I made up one for Epic ATs too... but, I'm not sure how to feel about it: —  Talk · Cont 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird lookin'. I mean, it looks cool, by itself, but since I know what it's made from, it looks weird (it also looks a little like a Jem'Hadar fighter: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Jem%27Hadar_fighter_CGI_model_upgraded_at_Foundation_Imaging.jpg). It's also not really necessary, since they already have their own icons. Felderburg 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The new icons get an /e thumbsup from me. It's a little weird to see the resist symbol used for defense, but I can wrap my mind around it easier if I think of it as "armor" instead. — talk / contribs 22:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Felderburg: Yeah, I have to agree. I like the form of it, but it seems odd when you consider what it actually is made of. And it was designed more for the fun of it than as an actually useable item. I suppose we COULD use the existing PMarket icons on the pages for the various EAT power set pages. And yes, it does look a little Jem'Hadar, you'll be pleased to note that I wouldn't have needed the link to know what you meant. I am a bit of a Trekkie, though (heresy, I know), ST:Voyager was my fave... mostly because the Borg are my favorite Trek race.

@Blondeshell: Thanks, glad you like 'em. I value your opinion when it comes to things like this since you spend so much time on the Wiki with visual stuff like screenies, badges, and the Paragon Market stuff. As far as the Defensive symbol? I admit that the name mismatch gave me pause, but I, like you, think of it as an armor set but decided to use the term that most completely refers to the category of power sets (armor seems more specific to those sets that use the word "armor").

Any qualms about me implementing these? —  Talk · Cont 04:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Implementatingness...

I began implimenting the above icons, and started to wonder if maybe the white symbol on each is a strong enough indicator and if maybe I should be matching the color scheme of the individual powers' icons with the background. It would certainly give each Power Page a consistent color scheme. Again, more work for me, but I think it'd look better, and I really did like the idea of each page having a unique icon. —  Talk · Cont 08:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to illustrate this, I mocked up a sample with a few Melee power sets, is there a significant difference using color-matched variants?

—  Talk · Cont 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I get the idea behind this and think it could have merit, but these color-coordinated ones somehow look garish and non-artistic to me. I think the problem is that, when I see a fist, I think of a costume piece, and I would never use the orange-on-black or purple-on-black color schemes. I expect that they would look fine with a non-descript symbol, such as for assault or control, but these just don't do anything for me (except the white-on-red version).

However, if the other icons look fine using this methodology, then I think they should all be done for consistency. — talk / contribs 04:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That's actually why I posted this. While in my head, it seemed like a good idea, but when I see it... it just doesn't do it for me. Maybe just have a few different background colors and keep all the fists and other symbols white?

Basically the impetus was when looking at the Dual Blades page for example. It just seems like the icon is really out of place. Maybe I should just abandon this idea in general. —  Talk · Cont 05:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the white looks good. So if you do have a bunch of colors, changing the backgrounds is what I'd do. What do they look like with a two color background? Right now it's two tone, with a light and dark shade of the background color, but that could be where the two colors come in... It's also possible you're making too much work for yourself - after all, while it's nice to have every power set article look the same with an icon, these are player designed, so it's not as important, in my opinion, that they be as unique as official icons. Plus, there's always the possibility that they get replaced with something official anyways (either archived artwork or something else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felderburg (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be the cranky one again. What problem exists in the original Dual Blades article that adding that icon solved? As a user, that icon doesn't say to me "this is a melee powerset". It says to me "this is Brute specific" because it's so similar to the Brute Archetype icon. The Pets icon has the same issue with looking too similar to the Mastermind AT icon. The Defensive icon has a different issue: to me it says "this is a Resistance-based set". The other icons are better because they at least aren't similar to existing symbols so they aren't actively misleading, but they still don't add anything. They're not familiar icons that people will know what they mean. And, as I alluded to earlier, they aren't solving a problem. It's not like people come to the page and are confused about what kind of powerset it is. The icons are pure visual fluff that are more likely to cause confusion than they are to aid anyone.

I realize I've already voiced a lot of that before but maybe this time it'll gain some actual traction. This isn't solving a problem, and it's potentially introducing a problem. I really do appreciate the creativity and enthusiasm and I hate to rain someone's parade, but I think the wiki would be better served by directing your efforts on something else. But if the majority consensus won't budge on that, then at the very least please rework the icons to avoid using any existing symbols to reduce the odds of confusion. -- Sekoia 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy seeing editors (myself included) talk about "consensus" these days when there's maybe 5 people still working on the wiki :p . Anyways, I liked the idea because it makes all the articles have the same look. As for the icons themselves, I don't really care what is used, as long as it looks good - and you have some points about potential issues. I would suggest, then, that the icons be changed per Sekoia's idea. There are three possibilities I see: 1. New unique icons replacing the ones that have issues. 2. Unique icons for every power set (it could be a contest on the forums, so that more people are involved doing the work*). 3. A single icon with a "Freem!" logo in the middle - indicating that the power set being shown was a freely available power set.

* I just realized that this might also encourage more people to edit the wiki, so that's a nice benefit too. Felderburg 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Of your three possibilities, something like #3 ("Freem!") sounds the best to me by far. It is unlikely to be confused for anything else, and I think it'll be relatively intuitive for people to guess what it means. I can even grudgingly support including the icons for that because it would add a fairly intuitive amount of meaning to the pages. Option #1 gets rid of the worst offenders so it's an improvement over the current, though I still am not a fan. I really don't like #2; that basically turns each article into a place to feature a piece of user fan art and won't actually add any objective value to the page. That kind of stuff would be better for OuroPortal. I'd rather stick with the current icons than do that.

As for consensus, to be fair, in the past consensus was often formed by only a small handful of people (often less than 5) for many things. Most editors didn't bother weighing in on most stuff. :) -- Sekoia 17:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sekoia, as much as I felt like you were being a wet blanket in our much much earlier discussion, I agree with your most recent points very much. I think I was a little too empassioned in the first discussion to see the merit of what you were trying to get across and just saw it as "I think you're wasting your time, and I hate your work..." Which it never was.

That being said, I think I can get behind option #3. It will still accomplish my stated goal of unifying the pages visually, and will minimize any sources of confusion. However, I do still like the power set icons I made, and will likely adjust the ones you discussed as just a personal project in case they ever come up as something useful in the future. I will take a look at the icons used in the "Playstyle" section of the character creator as an inspiration since they break things down similarlly to what I had in mind.

I would likewise be against the "art contest" idea for similar reasons as Sekoia. Any suggestion on what the FREEM icon should look like? —  Talk · Cont 04:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The best idea I can think of would be some variation/combination of the original pic and the Comic Con shirt with word art and a starburst of some kind.

Looking in the character creator for the playstyle icons, I realized that they also didn't touch on the Assault and Manipulation sets, or the defensive sets for melee ATs. However, the "Tank" playstyle used an icon that was a "star and badge" design, presumable as an homage to Statesman, that could be re-worked for the other ATs.

— talk / contribs 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Thanks for those, Blondeshell! I think I may adapt the Pets, control and support symbols to incorporate a version of those symbols. As for Armor/Defensive? Not sure.

Also unsure of what to do with the Freem icon. Not quite happy with those version s. —  Talk · Cont 06:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I like Blondeshell's idea for Freem. I was also thinking a starburst of some kind would work well. Maybe a starburst in the background and angle "Freem!" on a 45 degree angle across it? There's a lot of flexibility within that for the exact nature of the starburst, the font, the color scheme, etc. You could also put it all in the same frame as the other icons. -- Sekoia 13:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per my post in the Talk:Power_Set_Themes page, I now think the icons for free power sets should be based on existing nomenclature in the AT pages' overviews: melee, defense, buff, control, assault, ranged, support and summon (epic ATs not included in this list). It's worth noting that "support" is blaster secondaries and "assault" is dominator secondaries, and they seem to be specific to those ATs - all the other things we think of as "support" are "control" or "buff". And what I think you're referring to as "pets", mastermind primaries, is called "summon" (unless you have a broader definition of pets). But I do like the look of the playstyle icons - so something a little more varied than the "Freem" icon could work, in that color scheme. Felderburg 06:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd vote for changing the categorization of Blaster's secondary to something other than Support, since that really isn't what they are. Support is archetypically a Defender primary, i.e. buff/debuff. Also, pets and summon are functionally synonynous, so I don't understand the significance in distinguishing... At least in terms of classifying power sets. Individual powers did show a difference there, but to unify a group of powers (MM primaries) there is no difference and I believe both terms were used. Also, I wouldn't Define Control powers as a subclass of support in CoH, maybe in other games, but not here.

I'll make a mockup of a frwem icon, using the standard blue border.—  Talk · Cont 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue changing what the AT pages say, assuming there's not a good reason they are what they are right now. I assume that the categories I posted here are what they are for some sort of legit reason, but if it doesn't make intuitive sense to users of the wiki there's not much reason not to go with what we think of the power sets as. I guess changing "buff" to something like "support" would make sense, especially since many "buff" sets debuff. And changing Blasters' support to "manipulation" makes sense. I just think that whatever we call these sets needs to be consistent with the AT overviews, whether we change those or not. Felderburg 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)