Talk:Lion's Arch (Under Attack!)

Areas

Should we not have areas within this zone called "Fort Marinner (Under Attack!}", "Trader's Forum (Under Attack!" etc to hold the events pois, WPs etc that are individual to this zone? --Claret (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments or are the lack of them tacit agreement? --Claret (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya gotta give it a bit longer than a couple hours. Longer than a day even. Anyways, my thoughts on this is that when people go searching for this, they're going to be searching "Fort Marriner" not "Fort Marriner (Under Attack!)". While this would be a good way to historicalize it, for present use, I would avoid utilizing these suffixes. I would move all surviving location articles into a /historical subpage, replacing the main page with current events. E.g., we'd have Fort Marriner being the modern version, "Fort Marriner/historical" being the historical version (last version prior to destruction, a note on which NPCs/other things had changed over time), and once we get the next update that'll change Fort Marriner again, move what would currently be the modern version to either "Fort Marriner/Under Attack!" (preferable) or "Fort Marriner (Under Attack!)". I wouldn't do the same to LA itself, but combine Lion's Arch and Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) leaving a redirect at the latter. Images I would move to e.g. "File:Fort Marriner (historical).jpg" etc. as we update. Non-zone map images can be overrided, IMO, with zone map images moved in a similar manner to what's done for Kessex Hills.

I believe, for search and logic purposes, this is the best course of action. People will not likely be searching articles with (Under Attack!) on them, and the suffix may change over time (given that they even bothered to add such and it won't hold true for long). Konig 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly logical except that we have already defined a zone Lion's Arch (Under Attack!). If it's illogical to use the areas marked with "under attack" then surely it's just as illogical to have this zone. If people are searching for "Lion's Arch" then "Lion's Arch (Under Attack!)" will be just as confusing. Although I can't quite see where the confusion would be as the search would offer both alternatives. I wasn't the one who defined this zone but right now we have events that show their location as "Trader's Forum, Lion's Arch" but elsewhere defined as being in "Lion's Arch (Under Attack!)". I think we have to either merge or define the areas for the "new" zone. I am not worried which one, just that we choose which way to go. --Claret (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The special zone name has an in-game source. The area names are unchanged in-game. That's a big difference, and I am against creating additional area pages. —Dr Ishmael 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I take that on board. So, do we need to dissociate the areas from "old" Lion's Arch or will they have a duplicate enclosing zone? The structure that we record things in does not seem to cater for an area being in two zones. I am really not trying to be argumentative but to fit this in the current structure will need some thought. IN GAME, as an example, Trader's Forum is now an area of Lion's Arch (Under Attack!). Should we change it on its area page? Also, by the way, not sure where to put this but there are a number of "hidden" events, either partially or completely hidden, in Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) zone. How to record them? --Claret (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see LAUA basically as any other instance - it takes up space on the existing map, covering existing areas. In this case, it simply covers the entirety of a previous zone. I would rather come up with better categorization options for the events (tag each event with its associated release, for example) than complicate the cartographic structure. —Dr Ishmael 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly don't disagree, but, with respect, we need to start this and work out how events are handled in this circumstance and, hopefully, any future ones. And someone needs to code it, I can't. Any thought on the "hidden" events? --Claret (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Claret: I was actually, if you read my post, suggesting to turn Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) into a redirect to Lion's Arch, effectively merging the two articles.

Anyways, in general, given that the old zone likely won't exist in the open world (I am presuming that the act of making this its own "new zone" is for any future acts of altering the Personal Story instancing system so that the many LA instances utilize old LA rather than current LA - a system obviously not in yet), I would much rather just simply merge the two and categorize like such - we don'y need things like Category:Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) when simply Category:Lion's Arch will do. In the long run, it would be nice to categorize events via LW release if temporary, having such override the zone event category in the infobox, but in short term I suggest keeping it simple and only utilize suffixes for historical copies of articles/images. Konig 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

So, the next question is, would be be generally agreed that the Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) page is copy/pasted onto Lion's Arch and a redirect made? Obviously the areas/poi/WPs etc will need to be updated too. --Claret (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy/pasted? No. Info merged together? Yes. Konig 16:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that most if not all of the Lion's Arch (Under Attack!) page could be added to the Lion's Arch page, with the locations added in the table. I am unsure how the "old" Lion's Arch should be linked/handled. --Claret (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See User:Claret/Sandbox7 - how would be link old Lion's Arch. The next release is in the offing and this version of LA might go away also. --Claret (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Diverse Ledges Waypoint

Quite dangerous. Apparently the Caromi are sending out continuous barrages of arrows (49K damage) that kill all that get close (enemies and players). Separ (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)