Talk:Archetype Enhancements

ATO/IO Benefit Comparison

Say, do we know if ATOs follow the same benefits-per-level as IOs or what soft of boost they give out? NinjaWeazel 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Set Bonus Limitation

The 'Superior Enhancements' section implies that you can only receive multiple set bonuses by upgrading a portion of the set. However, wouldn't it be equally viable to simply slot a portion of the set in a different power?

For instance, if a mastermind slots the first three ATOs in her minion power and the last three in her lieutenant power, then wouldn't she receive the first and second set bonuses twice? -- Kahzi 15:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you slot 3 of them in one power, and 3 in another, you will get the bonus for 2 and bonus for 3 twice! —Thirty7 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Who Put The 'O' in ATO?

All joking aside, though ATO may be a minomer and technically incorrect, it is (as far as I know) the most widely used abbreviation for the item in-game. I have seen many recent edits "correct" this from ATO to ATE. While I know our goal is to be accurate in dispensing information on the Wiki, does it not also behoove us to use the jargon that most folks in Paragon would understand? Even I look at "ATE" sometimes and go "what the puck is that?!" and I know quite well what it is. Its the same reaction I have when people call soda "pop" instead.... —  Talk · Cont 07:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The wiki strives to be official and correct. We should absolutely not be spreading information we know to be incorrect or misleading. ATO is incorrect; qualifying it as "technically" incorrect tries to diminish how incorrect it is but that's just silly. It's wrong, period. I 100% oppose us using it as if it were correct.

As for people looking at ATE and saying "what the puck is that?!", there's two things we should be doing to help mitigate that: 1, in articles we should be using the term in full before abbreviating just like any other abbreviation: "This power accepts Archetype Enhancements (ATEs) as well as Invention Origin Enhancements (IOs)."; 2, we should be linking the term to the article that explains it. We should be doing those things regardless of which acronyms we use, since many of our readers may be new to the game (or returning after an absence) and may have no idea what any of the acronyms mean.

As for "everybody" using it, that could very well be partly our fault. A lot of our articles used "ATO" originally, which no doubt helped further cement the abbreviation into people's minds. People come here looking for correct information, and when we give them the wrong information, it can have consequences. If we start consistently using the correct terminology, it wouldn't surprise me if that helps shift what people call it elsewhere over time. It won't single-handedly solve it--Paragon Wiki doesn't have that much power--but it may help.

As for soda versus pop, that's a regionalism; both are actually correct. ;) -- Sekoia 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

When I asked about various terminology a couple months ago (where they told me it was "Power Set"), Positron said that ATO is the convention they've been using since the players were using it. I prefer AO myself, but if the devs went on record calling it ATO, then I don't suppose we can really label that as incorrect or unofficial. I don't believe that the wiki is responsible for this trend. To avoid ambiguity, we may want to decide to call them Archetype Enhancements without abbreviating it. --GuyPerfect 19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I recant what I said then since the devs are effectively making ATO official. But wow. I'll second the recommendation to avoid abbreviations where we can (it's another good general purpose thing to do anyway). Unfortunately there are places where an abbreviation makes more sense, like in tables and such. -- Sekoia 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, I am very surprised the Devs use ATO in an official capacity. Second, I just wanted to comment that implying the use of ATO as a term is equivalent to "spreading misinformation" is way overboard. Now, if we invented our own term for it that no player or dev has ever used and adopted it as official... say... "ArchO" I could sorta see where you are coming from Sekoia. However, even that wouldn't exactly be misinformation in my book. It would be a convention for abbreviating something (poorly in this case) but a convention nonetheless. Now, were we discussing adding some additional set bonus information that simply didn't exist, I would be on-board with your vehemence. But we aren't. Misinformation misleads readers, a different abbreviation that the players actually use... to me, seems to do quite the opposite and be LESS not more confusing. Now, let me make it clear that I acknowledge your recant, I just wanted to comment on the original angle as well.

So, where does that leave us? Are we switching to using ATO? Are we keeping both?

I also wholeheartedly agree that we should be using the full term with a parenthetical note of the abbreviation (abbr.) as well as a link to the appropriate article. My comment about it being confusing was just if you happen to scroll down the page or see it before you click the link.—  Talk · Cont 23:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)