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)

Wow. If I had known you were going to be a huge prick about it (I really should have known) I would have just left it completely alone. If my original suggestion was "dont split it up, make a table with anchors" then perhaps that's what you should have done in the first place. Frankly, I can see arguments to make individual pages, one inclusive page, and even both. In the case of tasks such as Gem collecting, Pelt collecting, Foraging, etc. where we want to dedicate an entire page to it, wouldn't it make sense to be consistant throughout the category? Yes, the log clipping format is just fancy padding for the article, but to me, that's ok. We have a main page which discusses the main points of each task. Why not also have individual pages which can go into more detail (where necessary), have examples (so they dont clutter up the main page), and any other tables or diagrams we feel like including? _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 22:59, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

It seemed to me that you were intending to remove the entire section that had been in "Available tasks" and replace it with that table. That is what was communicated by your deleting the entire "Gem collecting" section and replacing it with a link that existed in a table. If you'd not intended to do that, then I misinterpreted your actions, and am sorry. But, that's what you'd done, I thought it was a spectacularly bad idea, and we've come up with a page that is way better than the format I'd laid out originally, which is fantastic. justin ^talk 23:20, 21 August 2006 (EDT) <- A huge prick.

Your interpretation of my edit is correct. I had thought that since it was to be its own page, it needn't be outlined on this page as well. Upon further discussion, that may not be the best formatting for this particular information. That is what I understand these talk pages are for. I still feel the best way (astonishly also a compromise) would be both this main article, and an individual, detailed page for each task. I shall await additional opinions before deciding upon or executing any further changes. _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 23:49, 21 August 2006 (EDT) <- The bigger prick.

I think that a longer more detailed page for each task is fine, if in some places a bit unnecessarily verbose. I also think that it is important to retain some information on the main page, as exists currently with the gem collecting section. In my opinion, that's the best one, and that's not even a compromise for me, I threw a hissy fit and got my way. Therefore, I'm the biggest prick. Super <3 that table, and I wish you'd reiterated to me that's what you meant about the 725 style, because really, it's far superior. justin ^talk 00:52, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Bounty Rewards by Skin

The bounty point rewards (not silvers) appears to be the average silver value of the skins turned in for the bounty.

Level 55: 10 exceptional snow madrinol skins: 1254 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 3085 silver. -Andy ^talk 22:48, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 9 exceptional snow madrinol skins: 1283 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 2842 silver. -Andy ^talk 20:24, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 6 exceptional snow madrinol skins: 1162 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 1713 silver. -Andy ^talk 15:19, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 5 exceptional snow madrinol skins: 1088 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 1335 silver. -Andy ^talk 14:48, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 10 exceptional faeroth fangs: 890 bounty points, 700 experience points, and 2176 silver. -Andy ^talk 15:29, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 5 fair faeroth fangs: 459 bounty points, 600 experience points, and 549 silver. -Andy ^talk 17:04, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
Level 55: 8 fair snow madrinol skins: 1081 bounty points, 600 experience points, and 2122 silver. -Andy ^talk 20:24, 22 August 2006 (EDT) Level 56: 9 fine heavy grey tusks: 919 bounty points, 650 experience points, and 2024 silver. -Andy ^talk 14:43, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Bounty Rewards by Escort

Ta'Illistim to Ta'Vaalor, at level 55, one ambush: 360 bounty points, 500 experience points, and 3600 silver. -Andy ^talk
Wehnimer's Landing to Solhaven, at level 67, one ambush: 384 bounty points, 500 experience points, and 3840 silver. _{who is} Ulthripe ^{reads this} 00:04, 4 September 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)

Titles

Here's the link to the announcement with the titles and how to win them: AdG Titles
Too lazy and tired tonight to bother with making the required tables!Rail 20:42, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

I made a table in the Title system article. Or two tables. Whatever. -Andy ^talk 20:44, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

Nicers. I'll just link the two, rather than replicate them.Rail 21:51, 14 October 2006 (EDT)