PotBS Wiki

Mission Notes[]

Wouldn't it look better if they mission notes were on top of the mission article. Then people can directly read the synopsis of the mission when they arrive on the page. And if interested read further. --Mopster 22:23, 15 December 2007 (CET)

Yeah, good point - especially since all the dialogue is really nothing more than flavor information. That said, I think the Requirements and Follow-Up header should stay at the top, in the mission notes, so people can see where in a chain of quests they are at the moment.
Take a look at Illegitimate Business, I reformatted that according to these guidelines. What do you think? --Ailar 22:58, 15 December 2007 (CET)
To nitpick a bit more, i'd place the description text above the requirements. :) --Mopster 23:07, 15 December 2007 (CET)
there ya go :) --Ailar 23:10, 15 December 2007 (CET)
incidentally, I'm moving this whole section to my talk page. Once PotBS goes Live, I'll want to use this space for a proper User page, with char names and whatnot :)

Some of the faction rep missions you've added are titled according to what your character standing was with the faction at the time you encountered the mission giver. E.g. Dutch West India Company: Become Trusted. The 'Trusted' is the next standing in reputation above what your character standing was at the time (i.e. 'Indifferent'). When I met the Brit auditor in Port Royal I was 'Loathed' so it read "British East India Company: Become Indifferent". What I did with the British one was to have the final wording be 'status improved' rather than a particular standing there to avoid confusion with folks who aren't the same standing as I am.Istvan56 21:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly one way to look at it. The only faction so far for which I've been offered more than one of these missions are the Knights Templar. I've entered them as separate articles, Become Trusted and Become Esteemed. The reason why I saw them as two different missions are that 1) they are against different enemy factions, and 2) they aren't the same level (Become Trusted is level 40, Become Esteemed is level 45). The second reason for me is the strongest argument for keeping them separate, but even if technically they are different missions, we could still combine them in one article. We'd need some explanation in each of these articles of how the mechanics for these missions work though - i.e. which factions you have to hunt at which reputation level, how the mission name changes depending on your reputation level ( I saw you already did that one), different mission levels... and maybe make redirects so that article titles like "Faction name: Become Trusted" refer you to our combined mission articles. --Ailar 05:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
One point we failed to note is how repeatable this mission is. When I encountered it there was no way a mere 100 points was going to move me up to 'Indifferent' so I figured it was repeatable. I cancelled the mission since I would rather change my rep by killing non-Bretheren pie rats than by ruining my rep with other nations I can get missions from later.Istvan56 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw someone on the forum once claim that they are repeatable, but couldn't confirm it myself. When I finished Knights Templar: Become Trusted and went to claim the reward, I didn't get it offered again. But then, I could have made the jump to Trusted status while I was doing that mission (I was working on some other Templar missions at the time). I haven't finished Knights Templar: Become Esteemed yet. And I cancelled my House of Trade bounty mission for the same reason as you - it's just not a good deal for a FT --Ailar 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mission Links[]

What do you think about adding the misison level behind the link to the mission (if possible ofcourse)? --Mopster 20:44, 10 January 2008 (CET)

Hmm, how would that look like? Something like this maybe:
The Brute (9) or maybe
The Brute (9) ??
That would make writing links to these pages more work (need to look up level first, the link is more than twice as long if you include the level in the URL itself). And another problem is the fact that most mission levels we have here are no more than estimated guesses and probably not very correct. We could include them as a additional bit of info if we're sure about the data being correct, but as it is now, what info we have is only one click anyway anyway...--Ailar 20:53, 10 January 2008 (CET)
The second one looks best, and no need to put them in the url/article title. I was just thinking of having it as additional information when viewing an npc so you know when you can get a mission from him. :-) --Mopster 21:02, 10 January 2008 (CET)
But you're right concerning the level guesses so we can wait with it for later. --Mopster 21:03, 10 January 2008 (CET)
Oh, if you're talking about just displaying them like this in the NPC's infobox, then I agree - that would be very useful to have so you can see the levels at a glance. I was just getting a bit worried about setting up the mission links like this everywhere in the wiki ;)
One suggestions for when/if we do implement that (I might do the change for one NPC to try it out): display the level before the mission name - since the names all have different lengths, it might defeat our purpose of having you see the level all at a glance if they are at the end --Ailar 21:09, 10 January 2008 (CET)

Done, take a look and tell me what you think: Rosalinda Diaz --Ailar 21:15, 10 January 2008 (CET)

Semantic Media Wiki[]

Why did you remove SMW stuff from pages like Uncle Ibrahim? -- Nef (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I'm sorry. I wasn't sure where you were going with that and figured it to be some kind of experiment because it was only added to a very few NPC pages. But I should have asked first - my apologies!
So, where were you going with that? As far as I could see, it was basically a plain word summary of the data in the template. Which is fine, but then we wouldn't need (to display) the template anymore - is that the ultimate goal of the SMW stuff, to get rid of the template? --Ailar 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you got it exactly right. It's an experiment. I'd like to test if SMW can automagically produce infobox-ish summaries. From ordinary wiki articles. What - as a nice bonus - may encourage people to actually create those old fashioned (-; wiki articles. -- Nef (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, in that case my apologies again for messing around with it - won't happen again :) Want me to revert those articles or would you prefer to try it out on some others? --Ailar 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a big deal, no problem. I was just worried you guys have decided to kick out this strange SMW stuff from PotBS wiki. (-; If you happen to edit those pages pls. revert. Otherwise don't bother, I'll do it. Btw, feel free^Wencouraged to add such info to other pages! -- Nef (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You lazy boy, you! Don't add SMW stuff to the infobox. Edit the main wikitext instead! (-; Serious reason: if we ever prove SMW is as good as infoboxes and start removing them... we remove SMW info as well. I know, I know, distant future etc. Anyway, please consider adding SMW relations to the main body of text, not to the infobox. (Or other lists for that matter.)

Suggestion #2: not [[Mission Location::]] but [[is located in::]]. Use verbs in relations and avoid additional info. "Mission Location" implies this is a relation between mission and a place. "Is located in" is usefull for both missions and NPCs. I got the feeling this will help us build better queries later on. Something like "show me is-a::{variable} and is-located-in::place" can be used in e.g. port template.

I'm not sure it's important. Maybe it's just my coding background - don't repeat data if you can avoid it. We know it's a mission, we already have is-a relation.

Please, please, please - read above as a suggestions only. I'm glad you find SMW interesting and I'm happy you started to play with it. I'm experimenting too, I have no "true answers". There is a GREAT value in you trying different things than me. (-: -- Nef (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay, I see what you mean :) This was something that I didn't particularly like anyway, seeing as how SMW is an alternative (and possible replacement) to the infobox templates. However, I do like redundancies even less, and if the data is already there in the infobox, I feel a bit silly about stating it again in the article text. Just what you said actually ("don't repeat data if you can avoid it"), and for the same reason ;)
So what I did now when editing another mission was to just add some invisible property tags to the end of the article. See Money in the Bank for what I mean. I'll edit the other mission article to look like this too.
However: I'm worried that all this might might be a bit complex for new users who are not familiar with relational databases. After thinking about it for a bit, I don't find it too hard to wrap my head around the concept of SMW, but then I'm a professional programmer anyway. Someone who isn't (and who's also relatively new to wiki editing, like I am too for that matter) won't even think about adding properties when writing up a new article, and will probably be confused when they come upon these properties in existing articles. Could be tough to introduce SMW as a standard in here, is all I'm saying ;) --Ailar 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NPC articles[]

I've answered you on User_talk:Ppiotr/Pirates_of_the_Semantic_Sea. -- Nef (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page design[]

As the main active user on the wiki at the moment (great job by the way!), I was wondering if you could take a look at User talk:Kirkburn/Dev. It's regarding a fairly important change that needs to be made.

Also, have you considered becoming an admin? If you manage to get the blessing of others (or if you don't get any response from them), it might make sense. (Can you reply either on my talk page, or the page linked above, thanks!) Kirkburn (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Quiting the game[]

Hey Ailar I'm quitting the game to move on and do other things. So from now on you can expect even less from me on the PotBS wiki. Feel free to contact me any time though by leaving a message on my discussion page. --Lord Alderaan 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message, yes I do believe we need a new SysOp and yes if you are willing to pick that up I support you. In fact I was under the assumption you already were one. Try contacting User_talk:Ppiotr. --Lord Alderaan 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)