Category talk:Objects

Need an Artillery category

Anything that is not an NPC and that can do ranged damage like Cannons, Ballistas, Catapults, Turrets of all kinds and even the Sonic Periscope, should be in a category called "Artillery". Thoughts? --Alad 18:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a good name, cf. Corrupted Ice Formation - I wouldn't call that "artillery." Why do you feel we need a subcategory for "objects that cause damage" anyway? What use do you see for it? —Dr Ishmael 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

[[:category:objects that cause ranged damage]], [[:category:objects that cause aoe damage]], [[:category:objects that cause point-blank damage]] would be subsets of [[:category:objects that cause damage]], but I am not sure how it helps to subcategorize even [[:category:objects]]. Still, if you insist the wiki distinguish, why not stick with the predictable and generic names. artillery is a specific type of item that causes damage at range. 75.36.178.111 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Artillery specifically launch munitions to cause damage at range. The object I linked doesn't launch anything. —Dr Ishmael 20:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It launches magic. 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or shoots a cold wave all around it. We're allowed to stretch the meaning of "stack" to be able to say "25 stacks of might" instead of "a stack of 25 might", aren't we? :D The best name I could find was Artillery since the vast majority work like that. As for why, it just makes sense. If you want, for example, to create a page for all turret-like weapons, you could populate it automatically. You have a weapons category, and sub-categories for each type of weapon. Artillery is one of those, isn't it? (I wouldn't put that under the generic "object" category, but under "weapons".) --Alad 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I like talking about "Objects". Some other discussion can be found HERE. Right now there are but two types of objects, interactive (yellow text, non moving) and destructive (yellow text, non moving, destroyed by combat). The 3rd type would be environmental weapons (yellow text, non moving, when used changes players skill set) but that category is "on hold", no one is sure what info box we will be using. The other sub categories (gravestones) could be removed. But an answer, I have seen many cannon, most are destructive objects, but a few are environmental weapons and one needed repair so it was interactive. In my prior discussion I too thought perhaps we should break things down into smaller sub categories but really in most cases it would be overly confusing in making the info box and few users would even notice. It's really the info box "object" that makes "artillery" an object. I think we use object since most of the cannon are in fact unusable by players. Objects don't get much love.Yoe Dude 23:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I read your analysis on objects. It's fine for designing a game, because it's that detailed. What I think this wiki should be able to do, is that editors create pages for objects (everything including npcs are objects in that sense), and code assembles those objects into meaningful lists when needed. This, especially to avoid the redundancy and tedious updating of lists as items characteristics change or are deleted. Just change the item's infobox and the lists will be updated. This is basic database design. Hence a need to be able create properties for those items which are interesting to list together. Meaningful for the wiki, is the keyword to me. I believe all those artillery weapons are a category and you should be able to make an automatic list of them just as you can make one for other weapons. Of course Interactive and Destructible can and should be properties of all objects, but categorizing by type/usage is also necessary. This is also in the hope that entering data in the wiki will soon become easy like filling in a form in an application, with listboxes and checkboxes, rather than the current error-prone methods. An external application, even, which posts the data to the wiki.

I don't understand why ArenaNet, who make the game's whole item database available on the web, force us to re-enter it instead of just linking us to it. We would then not have to worry about object properties and categories because they're already defined by them. And we wouldn't have to update them either, but just create helpful pages for ArenaNet's players using that data. This wiki is for them, after all. --Alad 00:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Point of clarification: GW2DB was created by a third party (Curse Networks) who reverse-engineered the game's data tables. It was not made available by ArenaNet. —Dr Ishmael 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Siege weapons already get their own category. We won't categorize hostile objects, but I do want to set a property for them, just like interactive and destructive properties.--Relyk ~ talk > 01:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. It's so comprehensive. Still doesn't excuse ArenaNet from not providing us with a connection to the data base so we don't have to waste time entering the data again and updating it repeatedly. We're maintaining a manual copy of the database. This is truly a zero-value-added, time-wasting activity. @Relyk: "Categorizing" in wiki terms is something I'm not familiar with or its repercussions. What matters is to be able to identify them via code, so a property is probably all it takes. That's what I meant by "category". --Alad 07:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)