Short List of Questions for Duwis

[Borror0]

OMG, MrCow, that is hilarious on so many level! You should know I am a wiki wizard though. =/

However, this thread is amazing, and I want to compliment Duwis on having a more direct back and forth exchange of ideas between turbine staffer and motivated player than any I've ever seen. I am really impressed, Duwis, in how you have directly addressed some direct criticisms and asked for and acknowledged ideas. It's awesome.

Word.

[Jefro]

Following wand is missing from the compendium.

Eternal Wand of Charm Monster - (Misc) Charm Monster (CL:1, 2/rest) [Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard only, UMD:6] (Llyndarus's Chest in tempest spine)





The following are not in the game, they have been in the compendium for a long time and are items that are in quest that do not exist or items that were not included once DDO went live. Could it be possible to get a new look of re adding some or if they not going to be added to the game, remove it from the compendium so easier for people to know what items are exactly in the game to search for? Maybe moving the missing items to its own spot in the compendium?


Some of these items the enemy that the item is named after exists, could it just be possible that the devs do not know the chest is broken, like how they did not know that the giant hold adventure area was not dropping relics?
I can help finding the name's chest locations if asked.



Armor:
+2 Mithral Chainrobe, +3 Stonemeld Full Plate, Deathstalker Armor (Leather armor), Kelmar's Vest (Studded Leather), Lesser Stonemeld Armor, Lesser Whirlwind Armor, Nargryl's Frypan (Breastplate)

Docents:
Disc of Bladewarding, Granite Sphere

Robes:
Magi Robe

Shields:
Dark Defender, Deneith Protector, SMACK, Whirling Buckler

Weapons:
Beater (Club), Biter (Long Sword), Chieftan's Morningstar, Darksting, Ikaris' Staff, Kelmar's Betrayal (Dagger), Kelmar's Justice (Warhammer), Plague's Fang (dagger), Wraithbane (Heavy Mace)

Everything Else:
Blizzard's Hide, Bone Amulet, Bracers of Magery (Tempest Spine), Clear Fang, Eye of Fire, Flamefang's Hide, Fortified Gauntlets, Golden Bracer, Helm of Detection (Irestone Inlet), Jasper Ring, Oven Mitts, Powder's Hide, Quintus' Sandals, Ruby Ring, Shadestone Necklace, Stormcleave Goggles (Stormcleave), Targath Amulet (Stormcleave), Teralin's Wedding Band (Abandoned Keep), Wightskin Belt, Zeef's Amulet(baudry's quest tier 2)



There also more basic items added to the compendium but not in game but so many to list

[Missing_Minds]

Well, to be fair, I had Elliott but if you knew Elliott you'd know why I said I learned on my own.

Sounds like me asking my mother how to spell words on occasion. Her answer? Go look it up in a dictionary. I'm standing with the dictionary open in front of me already trying that!!!

[Missing_Minds]

There is always a chance of that, but first, we have to make sure we can provide good data.

Emm... are you talking data that is correct, or data that is in the correct order of bits so as not to be corrupted through an API?

If it is the latter, sure, if it is the first... let us have it any way. You have a community of free interns that want to help. Use us.

[Borror0]

Sounds like me asking my mother how to spell words on occasion.

Oh, it is far worse. It's more like asking to your mom the definition of a word, then, to understand her definition you have to look up five new words in the dictionary and then take time to process all the new information.

[NameisToad]

Well, there are a few and I think the major one is that if any would want to spend time editing, he would rather spend time editing the DDOwiki over the Compendium because most players agree that the Compendium is "worthless". Both in quantity and quality, the DDOwiki is superior to the Compendium (which is kind of sad because the wiki is kept updated in the spare time of what is the equivalent of three editors) and for this reason most knowledgeable players don't see the point in editing the Compendium.

Back in July of 2007 I created a few pages on the DDOwiki giving advice to new players about creating new characters and some general starting information. I did so because at the time, the only other place anyone could get that information was in the newbie help forums, and I was tired of typing that info out for one individual, only to have another individual ask a very similar question a few days later.

I intended to give links to the individuals who asked those types of questions, in order to save myself the time of responding in detail to each person who asked the same types of questions. Those pages in the wiki haven't been updated by anyone else since July 2007. All of the information I added then is now completely obsolete, as the character starting point is different and the options available to new players have changed somewhat.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing I would not know where to put this type of information. Should it go in the wiki, the compendium, or would it be better to put it on my guild website somewhere and then post links to it in the forums? My take for the moment is that it should go nowhere until more clear limitations get worked out.

I'm not saying that I'm a huge wiki contributor or that I know everything there is to know about DDO, because neither is true, but I am wondering how many people are currently putting off editing either of these because one looks obsolete and the other looks obtuse.

Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

[Ustice]

Back in July of 2007 I created a few pages on the DDOwiki giving advice to new players about creating new characters and some general starting information. I did so because at the time, the only other place anyone could get that information was in the newbie help forums, and I was tired of typing that info out for one individual, only to have another individual ask a very similar question a few days later.

I intended to give links to the individuals who asked those types of questions, in order to save myself the time of responding in detail to each person who asked the same types of questions. Those pages in the wiki haven't been updated by anyone else since July 2007. All of the information I added then is now completely obsolete, as the character starting point is different and the options available to new players have changed somewhat.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing I would not know where to put this type of information. Should it go in the wiki, the compendium, or would it be better to put it on my guild website somewhere and then post links to it in the forums? My take for the moment is that it should go nowhere until more clear limitations get worked out.

I'm not saying that I'm a huge wiki contributor or that I know everything there is to know about DDO, because neither is true, but I am wondering how many people are currently putting off editing either of these because one looks obsolete and the other looks obtuse.

Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

I share this problem. I like that the Compendium is official, but after trying to fix some of the feat craziness and failing then finding that I am not able to correct "official" data I gave up. I'm glad to hear that this is going to be fixed. (thanks Duwis!)

Flaggedrev ftw!

[Lorien_the_First_One]

We are all Kosh.

I think I met you once long ago.

[iamsamoth0]

Following wand is missing from the compendium.

Eternal Wand of Charm Monster - (Misc) Charm Monster (CL:1, 2/rest) [Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard only, UMD:6] (Llyndarus's Chest in tempest spine)

Ou! Ou! ou!
ou! Iwant, I want!
Oh, ou!

[Duwis]

Gathering up replies to some of the smaller posts into one...

I don't need GOOD data as long as it is consistent. I can filter noise if needed. (yay for regex)

There might be a time where we push data that is good but not entirely complete, but we're not to that point yet.

But now that you mention it, what sort of chance are we talking about here?

We're always kicking around options for providing the community with more tools and toys.

The danger for Turbine, it seems to me, is that a player-run wiki setup is more likely to include information which is not always complimentary to the game; eg 'this feat is not good' and 'this enhancement is regarded as poor and rarely taken', which for understandable reasons they may not want in their official compendium, but for equally understandable reasons the players might want them there!

I hope you, Duwis, can take the same 'that means we need to get the data right' approach to those situations and let the game be guided by a 'players would stop saying virtuoso sucked if it stopped sucking' approach to more player access to including information.

As long as the discussion runs civil, I have no issue with people discussing the merits or lack thereof when it comes to game mechanics. That doesn't mean simply saying "No one takes this, and it sucks". This would mean something along the lines of "No one takes feat X because feats Y and Z work better across a wider range of beasties".

Following wand is missing from the compendium.
<snip>

The following are not in the game, they have been in the compendium for a long time and are items that are in quest that do not exist or items that were not included once DDO went live.
<snip>

There also more basic items added to the compendium but not in game but so many to list

Yes, the inclusion and exclusion of items on the Compendium is one of the issues that we're working hard on sorting out -- personal crusade of mine. This isn't going to happen overnight, unfortunately, but we're pushing hard to resolve this.

Emm... are you talking data that is correct, or data that is in the correct order of bits so as not to be corrupted through an API?

If it is the latter, sure, if it is the first... let us have it any way. You have a community of free interns that want to help. Use us.

Talking about data that is accurate though not necessarily complete. For example, if we push data about weapons/armor, we want to ensure the base stats are accurate, but we might not push any special effects/bonuses right away.

Do the 'powers that be' care if the players choose to update the compendium?

Yes, we always enjoy people sharing on the Compendium their insight and experiences playing the game.

I think I met you once long ago.

Indeed, but now, I am currently stuck between 'Tick' and 'Tock'.

[Duwis]

First of all, it means that you value reflection the game's data over valuable information.

Not at all; the two go hand in hand. Further down in your message, you posit the question on people's minds "Why should I bother with this wiki?". We see being able to have an accurate representation of the game data as the answer to that question. You come to the Compendium because we can (and should) provide the most accurate, up-to-date information on what is in the game.

Once we draw you to the site, we then need to encourage and enable the community to provide additional information that players would find useful. Tips, tricks, builds... all the stuff that helps de-mystify the mechanics of the game and explains why you might not want not use that +2 Armor even though the stats look good.

There are multiple of pages were the description is either incorrect or so generic that it does not give any information worth reading. It's not the fault of the Compendium, as it reflects the data found in the game but it still is a problem for the players.

Where it is incorrect, we are working on making it correct. As for generic information, I can only work with the data I'm given, but I can stand beside you and rattle the saber to get it improved.

The second problem is that the game does not seem to be coded for its data to be used by the Compendium. Let me elaborate on that.

The worse section for this is the feat section, which is a total mess.

We've been doing a great deal of work on cleaning that mess up. I think you'll see vast improvements on this soon.

All feats lack their prerequisites, which is basic key information.

/signed and something we're working on. Should be in the next update.

Racial feats, free feats and class feats are not separated from bonus feats (the ones you get at level 1 and every multiple of 3) which may be extremely confusing for the players.

Again, something we've been working on; I'll be interested to see if the results are less confusing.

Enhancements that are probably coded to act as a feat, like action boosts, are added in the wrong category.

This is something I can say will be fixed in the next update. Overall, I believe we've done a better job in making sure feats and enhancements are separated properly.

Redundant feats spam the category, like favored enemies, weapon proficiencies, weapon focuses and weapon specializations.

Again, something you'll see fixed in the next update.

While I agree that it would be ideal if you could just have every automated, I am not sure it is a realizable project in the end. Of course, I do not have the technical knowledge to know whether this is true or false but that is how it looks from the user's end.

It is a realizable goal, just not one we're going to reach magically overnight.

When I say it is difficult to browse, it is because those who designed the Compendium fell for the two pitfalls of a wiki: too much information on the same page and assuming categories will the job for you. Class pages are guilty of the first one. It requires far too much scrolling down to get to the information you want (which is made worse by the lack of a ToC) and the page is too long to load on bad connection/computers.

I can see your point; a ToC certainly would help on the class pages. A lengthy page isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I agree that some design love can help make it easier to get through.

Meanwhile, most category pages in the Compendium of the second. While listing all members of a category in the way it is currently done requires less work, it is much less enjoyable for the user who usually prefers pages with short descriptions as it allows to browse the category faster and with less clicking.

Not quite sure what you are trying to describe here; do you have any specific examples you can point to? In general, it is always helpful to have links in these discussions -- ones to examples you cite as problems and ones to examples of what you feel might be a solution or close to one.

When one sees he cannot correct the mistake,

This is probably where we might always have to agree to disagree. Our position is that the user shouldn't have to correct the mistake. It is our data we are working off of; it should be correct. When it isn't, we should provide the users with an easy way of letting us know so we can fix it.

My personal goal for the Compendium is to have the correct information in place, and to be able to respond quickly to patch it up when it isn't. I want people to be able to come to the Compendium and focus on writing more "fun" pieces about how to play the game rather than worry about "Gee, I'm going to have to first touch up the stats on this item or fill in the blanks on this feat first".

The weighty design around the 'official content' makes the 'unofficial content' look silly and gives the feeling to contribute to a low quality product.

Again, pointing back to the Lorebook, you can see we've come to the same conclusion and are working on ways to reduce, if not, eliminate that perceptual barrier.

How long can we should expect "long term" to be?

As long as it takes.

Not sure I understand your question.

Not important; was basically saying I can't give you a reason why namespaces were used. But, I can guess at why based on this wee block from MediaWiki's docs on the subject:

From MediaWiki 1.5 Recent changes ditto.

* Searching can be restricted to any subset of namespaces

User contributions can show all or be restricted to a namespace of choice.

The subpage featurehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Subpage_feature can be enabled for selected namespaces.

It is possible to customize the visual appearance of pages and the appearance and function of templates based on namespace.

I think you'll be seeing some good uses of searching by namespaces in the next update. (ooo... mysterious...)

That's the weakest argument, though.

When I say it's an overuse, I mean that it is unnecessary work for the editors and users. Because of your heavy usage of namespaces, an editor will have to type [[Feat:Power Attack|]] instead of [Power Attack]] each time he wants to link to the Power Attack page. Same goes for enhancements, items, etc. It's unnecessary work. Users go through the same trouble when typing the address of a page, even if that is a less significant problem.

I can't say I find this a compelling argument against using namespaces. Sure, it might be annoying to type out more characters, but you can conversely say that the tiny bit of extra work is beneficial in its readability.

I don't enjoy commenting my code, but the extra work saves me down the line when I have to revisit it. I know exactly what is going on in it. When I read the source for an article, I know exactly what is being linked to -- a feat called 'Power Attack' as opposed to a spell of the same name.

So, I can see it both ways -- potentially annoying but also potentially useful. Anyone else want to chime in for/against namespaces?

Most importantly, it is very confusing to use. It may lead to duplicates (v1 & v2)

Agreed, but this is something an active community can police and iron out. We just need to get that community active.

or simply lead to complicated questions regarding what goes where,

Which is an argument for namespaces. Spells go in the spell namespace; feats in the feat namespace. ad infinitum... Rather than dumping everything into a large pot, we have specific sections for the various items.

Plus, we circle back to the fact that users coming to the Compendium shouldn't have to create new pages for in-game entities. We should make sure that if it is in the game, it has a page in the Compendium for the user to find. We want people to focus on having fun building the community rather than be burdened with the drudgery of adding in the basic information.

Let me just list you Favored Enemies to give you an idea:

• Favored Enemy
• <snip>

Of all of these, only Favored Enemy is worth keeping. Others are simply repeating the same information for nothing.

There are others. Weapon proficiencies, Fighter <weapon> Specializations I & II, Improved Criticals, Power Criticals, Weapon Focuses and Weapon Specializations are the ones I can think of right now but there might be others. They are annoying and useless clutter in category lists.

I think many would love them to be removed.

Covered this above already, but I'll repeat that you'll see this addressed in the next update.

[Angelus_dead]

So, I can see it both ways -- potentially annoying but also potentially useful. Anyone else want to chime in for/against namespaces?

As a programmer, I agree with you that Borror0's anti-namespace position is weak in theory. Whether it's smart in practice depends on details of exactly how the wiki software handles the automation.

Ideally, his objection that it obligates users to spend more work typing is something that should be addressed by server-side software: since namespaces are hardly ever needed to disambiguate between two terms, user-visible links can be shortened to omit namespaces whenever not necessary. That means that if a page is added on "Garibaldy" in namespace A, it's URL wouldn't mention any namespace until such time as a "Garibaldy" is created in namespace B. At that point, the original "Garibaldy" page becomes a disambiguation redirect (and preexisting internal links to Garibaldy at edited to point to the one that existed when they were written).

PS. Even using namespaces might not be enough to prevent ambiguity. What does "Power Surge" mean? Is it a level 20 Sorcerer enhancement, or a level 12 Fighter enhancement?

[RTN]

Talking about data that is accurate though not necessarily complete. For example, if we push data about weapons/armor, we want to ensure the base stats are accurate, but we might not push any special effects/bonuses right away.

This is precisely why I still use the unofficial wiki over the Compendium. Turbine tends to treat the hard numbers as a DM would--on a need to know basis. The wiki treats them as a player does--we need and expect to know. The general descriptions, while great for roleplaying favor, are next to useless when planning builds, etc. The Compendium is infinitely better than it used to be, but it is still lacking. Put it this way, will the official wiki ever include the hidden effects on some items? Would you let players post this information on the official wiki?

[Ustice]

As a programmer, I agree with you that Borror0's anti-namespace position is weak in theory. Whether it's smart in practice depends on details of exactly how the wiki software handles the automation.

The problem with using the namespace is that it is not designed for that sort of use. It's current implementation is that it is a hack. The OO programmer in me likes the idea, but the standards lover in me cringes. It is better to use categories for this purpose. It's cleaner, allows you to do category-specific searches, and wiki-standard.

Wikipedia, arguably the largest wiki around uses categories for their articles. Here is how they define namespaces. Our current use just doesn't make sense in the context.

In Wikipedia jargon, a namespace is that part of the Wikipedia database where all the data of a particular kind are stored. This definition applies to all wikis that use the MediaWiki software.

Namespaces are like folders in a filing cabinet — or on your hard drive. The main namespace, for example, contains all of the encyclopedia articles and past versions of those articles. Likewise, the user namespace contains the personal pages of registered Wikipedia editors.

Wikipedia has 18 basic namespaces (12 of which are listed in the table to the right of this article) and 2 custom namespaces. With the exception of the main namespace, each namespace has its own prefix (such as "Wikipedia:" or "User:"). Some namespaces have abbreviations that you can use instead of a full prefix to identify the namespace in a search or edit (for example, "WP:" instead of "Wikipedia:").

Namespace

• Main namespace
• Wikipedia namespace
• Help namespace
• User namespace
• Category namespace
• Image namespace
• MediaWiki namespace (help)
• Template namespace
• Special namespace
• Media namespace
• Portal namespace
• (table namespace)

Categories, on the other hand, make perfect sense. Here is how Wikipedia defines them.

Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. Categories can be defined as subcategories of other categories, allowing easy navigation between connected subject areas via a tree-like structure. This helps readers find articles on particular topics even if they don't know which articles exist or what they are called.

[Junts]

This is precisely why I still use the unofficial wiki over the Compendium. Turbine tends to treat the hard numbers as a DM would--on a need to know basis. The wiki treats them as a player does--we need and expect to know. The general descriptions, while great for roleplaying favor, are next to useless when planning builds, etc. The Compendium is infinitely better than it used to be, but it is still lacking. Put it this way, will the official wiki ever include the hidden effects on some items? Would you let players post this information on the official wiki?

Duwis, this is a good extention of the point of mine you responded to (and I appreciate the response) - this also carries over to potential class imbalances, etc; there seems like a potential future conflict if any class is in need of enough help as, say, paladins were in mods 4-5-6ish, when constructive, helpful and non-negative advice on a paladin class page could reasonably consist of 'players playing paladins may find it difficult to acquire groups, as they are generally felt to be weaker than other melee classes at the moment and few people wish to have them in their groups - new players attempting to play a paladin may be very frustrated'. This was the general state of the game when I came to ddo, and I wanted to play a paladin. I was lucky to have the assistance of real-life friends who were established players in preparing and creating my paladin to be an effective character (and he has since recieved a lot of dev love), but I would say it would have been 40-50% likely that, faced with that kind of result of research on the class I love to play, I might have chosen not to play ddo; however, the advice itself would only have been constructive and factual, and hence it presents a conflict for Turbine: let players be honest and potentially discourage new players on macro balance issues, or censor player commentary on class strengths/weaknesses in a way that will discourage player participation and lead to the compendium, at times, presenting flawed or misleading information. Not everything in ddo performs the way it says its supposed to perform (for example, paladins are not particularly effective vs undead the way their class description suggests, rather, they are somewhat less ineffective and arcane casters are particularly good against them in a way that is not expected. A player making an undead-focused paladin may out-perform other melee to a certain degree, but will still be frustrated and have a very difficult time against monsters that a sorceror can slay by the dozen with a single firewall in actual practice).

[Duwis]

The problem with using the namespace is that it is not designed for that sort of use.

This thread has gotten lengthy, so I'm not sure what context you are using when you say "designed for that sort of use".

Wikipedia, arguably the largest wiki around uses categories for their articles.

As do we; we use both namespaces and categories.

Here is how they define namespaces. Our current use just doesn't make sense in the context.

The more you quote the docs, the less likely you are to convince me that namespaces are "bad".

In Wikipedia jargon, a namespace is that part of the Wikipedia database where all the data of a particular kind are stored. This definition applies to all wikis that use the MediaWiki software.

Namespaces are like folders in a filing cabinet — or on your hard drive.

Right... folders in a filing cabinet... part where all data of a particular kind are stored... Sounds spot on with how we are using them; where do weapon articles go? In the Weapon namespace. Armor articles? Armor namespace. lather, rinse, repeat...

Categories, on the other hand, make perfect sense. Here is how Wikipedia defines them.

Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. Categories can be defined as subcategories of other categories, allowing easy navigation between connected subject areas via a tree-like structure. This helps readers find articles on particular topics even if they don't know which articles exist or what they are called.

And we do use categories as well, so we have that navigation flow/structure covered also. We have two levels of organization for the articles we automatically create -- the high level "category" is the namespace with things sub-categorized inside through categories.

[Duwis]

Duwis, this is a good extention of the point of mine you responded to (and I appreciate the response);
<snip>
however, the advice itself would only have been constructive and factual, and hence it presents a conflict for Turbine: let players be honest and potentially discourage new players on macro balance issues, or censor player commentary on class strengths/weaknesses in a way that will discourage player participation and lead to the compendium, at times, presenting flawed or misleading information.

We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

[Darth_Sizzle]

We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

Unless...

The smell of elderberries causes some enemies to become sickened (-2 AC & slowed)

therefore

Play a paladin; they smell of elderberries.

[sephiroth1084]

We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

This looks to be a good idea, but one that will be hard to implement. I'm not overly familiar with wikis (I use them as a search and info tool, but haven't posted to, or edited, any as yet), so I don't know how these things get handled. My concern, though, is that, unlike, say, an update of info to a scientific article, the relative value of one class, ability, feat, spell, enhancement or combination of the above are all just that: relative. And highly subject to person opinion.

I do think that linked discussions on a particular item would be most helpful to new players, or even people exploring a facet of the game they have not yet touched upon, but I don't know how we (Turbine and the playerbase/community who wish to see the Compendium become useful) could keep discussions clear of the usual bickering and unrelated tangents that tend to litter even the best forum debates.

Would these be subject to approval by a developer or webmaster, or to voting by the community, or...what? Perhaps this is covered by a basic facet of wikis that I am unfamiliar with, but that is my concern. My hope, is that you (we) can make this a functional and useful tool.

[Junts]

We want players to be honest and write honest pieces. That does not mean the piece can simply be "Don't play a paladin; they smell of elderberries". That doesn't help anyone; however, a decently written piece outlining why paladins seem to be underpowered compared to other classes along with any advice on how you can mitigate this would be of immense help, something I would welcome to the Compendium.

Does that help at all?

Yes; also, no longer the case (for paladins) but my concern was the potential conflict between 'honesty' and 'good ddo advertising' which, while undesirable, will occaisionally be the case: the game's not perfect, after all, and there will always be flaws. DDO's interest is in allowing the parts of it that are excellent to hook people and make them love it enough to tolerate/overlook the flaws.

So long as the compendium behaves in the way you've outlined, I think it will be quite useful and hope the playerbase will participate, though I suspect you will have to roll out your next update before they start.