Talk:Adventurer's Guild

ZOMFG

While this article is great and chock full of extremely useful information, it might be useful to farm out some of its content to other articles to keep it a bit less overwhelming and more accessable over all. I'd suggest creating a new page to detail each of the particular task assignments as a start and just including a brief blurb about the task on this page. This is really great work, everyone. :) - Oliver ^Talk 15:37, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Thanks. I considered making a ton of sub-pages, but then, the sub-pages would be very small, and really, on the main page it wouldn't save much room (as the amount of information-per-task is not that much). So, yes. I thought about it, but like it better this way... If a lot of people would rather it be any other way, then I'd not be sad to see it changed (and to be honest, if any of the tons of players who I've directed here had asked for it to be split up I would have without qustion). The only other sub-page (than the Foraging Locations one) I can see happening is a Skin Values page. justin ^talk 16:56, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

I agree this article appears cluttered. How do these edits suit everyone? The alternate solution would be to set the links in the chart as anchors to other headers within the article (similar to 725). Though, I do feel that each task has enough detail that it could be its own article. Check out Gem collecting as a potential template for the other task articles, and tell me how you feel. _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 06:47, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Alright, if I were DaCapn, I would be able to show you where I was writing this and asked U if I should split things into separate pages and he said, no, look at the 725 page. Oh well. You're right though, in order to add those uber-long descriptions, we need to split it up. So, April is working on a version that we just discussed this morning and hopefully that will be much better. As a policy, if a link exists in a table, it does not exist on that page. At least in my mind. I think it's my training in reading papers with tables where the actual data that is in the table is only something that is supplemental, and not actually necessary for understanding the text. Ie assertion is made in the text, and you either believe it, or you look at the table that contains their data and know why they made that assertion, but you cannot just have a paper that is a large table, and expect people to understand you. Life doesn't work that way, no matter how organized your table is, it is still going to confuse people. That's a sub-thought though.

I really really really think that if you say, "go to the gem dealer, ask them about your bounty, get the gems, and sell them back to the gem dealer", then that is way better than a full page of text with examples and such. That's the difference between less than one line of text that contains all the necessary information and an entire page. I made an Heirloom page to demonstrate how it is easy to take two paragraphs and change it to two pages without adding any information. I think that yes, gem collecting, skinning, and foraging could link to separate pages for their rewards, but think that the way I'd done it before is generally more concise. justin ^talk 11:48, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Bounty Rewards by Skin

Level 55: 10 exceptional snow madrinol skins: 1254 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 3085 silver. -Andy ^talk 22:48, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

Bounty Rewards by Gem Type

Perhaps this table can get added to this page (or one of its own) when it fills out a bit more? _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 03:51, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

The table's current location

I suggest recording just how many gems you've collected for these tasks. Since I know these figures, I went ahead and added them, though it looks to me like the bounty points recieved is independant of the number of gems required. -Andy ^talk 04:44, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Yes, it is independent of the number of gems, and so is just going to wind up being a retardedly long (and not particularly meaningful [in my opinion] table). I'll add what i have to it if really you guys think that it's important. I mean, Andy knows how many gem types there are, and yeah. Unless this was totally exhaustive, I don't see it being that useful. Also whoever was doing that table knows that this entry |[[ruby|star ruby]] is pretty silly as clearly there's a ginormous difference between rubies and star rubies (even though neither really links to a real page yet). Oh well, just my $0.02. justin ^talk 10:59, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

You're right, Justin. This is going to be a ginormous table, eventually, but I still see the use of the data. However, in order to prevent it from taking up the entire talk page, I went ahead and aligned it to the right. In any case... about the ruby/star ruby thing, you're right. There is a huge difference between rubies and star rubies, however, they do share the same noun, and as with all gems, the articles are going to be named after the noun, and not the specific gem, like with the sapphire, gem, and opal pages. Even gems with unique nouns (like the Selanthan bloodjewel) will redirect to their base noun (Bloodjewel). -Andy ^talk 13:18, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Oh, ok. fantastic. Since I've got what looks to be a slow work day ahead of me, I'll go ahead and see what I can come up with. Oh, also, I'll take the number out, since it's totally irrelevant if we're putting down silver per gem and then the bounty points (which is independent of quantity, too). justin ^talk 14:04, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Added opals (freaking nine white opals) and removed "Number of Gems" column since its not necessary (told ya so). _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 17:03, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Vyrsh added a ton of stuff to this chart, and I moved it to its own page. Further additions should occur there, and any other discussion on it's talk page _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 06:47, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Things that need to be done

• put this in a category
• discuss faraway tasks
• declare this to be AdG unequivocally

so what do you think? category suggestions? should we list a range of rewards for a given task or an average? justin ^talk 19:39, 12 July 2006 (EDT)