Talk:Power Set Themes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Sekoia (historical) |
imported>Felderburg (historical) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: There's some discussion on the forums: http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,9882.0.html Not sure it'll directly answer your questions though. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | : There's some discussion on the forums: http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,9882.0.html Not sure it'll directly answer your questions though. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Well, this is very much a work in progress. I just did it more to group together all sets in one place, since it wasn't there before (it's just for my own pleasure, mostly - the forum thread explains more about the reason for the creation of this article). The actual columns (control vs assault vs support) aren't super important to me, but I think help with the presentation. I sort of drew the lines as such: | |||
::* Armor / Self Buff for defensive powers that help only the person who use those powers (as opposed to just defensive in general, since '''defenders''' have a similar name to defensive, and I wanted to avoid confusion) | |||
::* Control for, well, I guess just controller / dominator primaries, so far. Not sure anything else would go there. | |||
::* Melee for melee. | |||
::* Ranged for attack-focused ranged sets (so mostly things like blaster primaries / defender secondaries) | |||
::* Ancillary / Epic / Pool for those sets, since they have so many types of power that they deserve their own column. | |||
::* Support for everything else. The issue is that I didn't want to end up having a column for each archetype,* which is what breaking down support would do. Additionally, the hybrid nature you mention of some sets led me to lump them together) | |||
::'''HOWEVER''', I'm looking at the archetype pages now, and there's already categories for these things, as listed in the overview for each archetype: melee, defense, buff, control, assault, ranged, support and summon (epic ATs not included in this list). I probably should have looked at that first. I'll rework the page to use those terms. I think it's worth noting that "manipulation" appears to be in the name for Blaster secondary sets only (based on a cursory search) - and according to the [[Blaster]] AT page, those are classified as "support". And your icon for "support" on the [[Category_talk:Custom_Power_Set_Icons]] page looks like it might be for [[Defender]] type powers - which are listed on that page as "buff" power sets. While Defenders are a "support" AT, I think using the existing nomenclature is important, so I'll rework this page to include the existing names for sets, per the AT pages. | |||
::As for Pets, if you look on the left column, I do have a spot for non-MM pet power sets to be placed. Although they will no doubt fit into other categories as well (fire control, for example, with its imps) I think it's important to gather the non-MM pet sets in their own place. It is self-evident that MM primaries have pets - that's the whole point of the AT. But people may not want to be an MM, but still want to know what sets they can get that have pets. Having a pets ''column'' would lead to duplicated sets - so I'll stick with a "summon" column, in keeping with the list in the previous paragraph, which will contain MM primaries, and then put other pet sets in the Pets ''row''. | |||
:: *I don't want a column for each AT, because it would make many sets appear in a row multiple times. There's so much overlap with things like the melee ATs, that it would just make the table larger unnecessarily. | |||
::[[User:Felderburg|Felderburg]] 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:23, 19 July 2014
About this Page
I am a little fuzzy on what you are trying to do with this page and what your determinations are for what a power set falls under. For instance, how is Fiery Assault a support set in the same way Thermal Radiation is? I would think you should break down the categories in the same way I did for the Power Set Icons: Defensive (Invulnerability, etc.), Melee, Ranged, Control, Assault*, Manipulation*, Pets, and Support (Empathy, Force Fields). (Heck, you could actually find a home for my icons here if you wanted in the headers! (* = You could probably combine Assault/Manip if you wanted since they are quite similar to each other in being hybrid sets with melee attacks.) User:Thirty7/Sig 05:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's some discussion on the forums: http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,9882.0.html Not sure it'll directly answer your questions though. -- Sekoia 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, this is very much a work in progress. I just did it more to group together all sets in one place, since it wasn't there before (it's just for my own pleasure, mostly - the forum thread explains more about the reason for the creation of this article). The actual columns (control vs assault vs support) aren't super important to me, but I think help with the presentation. I sort of drew the lines as such:
- Armor / Self Buff for defensive powers that help only the person who use those powers (as opposed to just defensive in general, since defenders have a similar name to defensive, and I wanted to avoid confusion)
- Control for, well, I guess just controller / dominator primaries, so far. Not sure anything else would go there.
- Melee for melee.
- Ranged for attack-focused ranged sets (so mostly things like blaster primaries / defender secondaries)
- Ancillary / Epic / Pool for those sets, since they have so many types of power that they deserve their own column.
- Support for everything else. The issue is that I didn't want to end up having a column for each archetype,* which is what breaking down support would do. Additionally, the hybrid nature you mention of some sets led me to lump them together)
- HOWEVER, I'm looking at the archetype pages now, and there's already categories for these things, as listed in the overview for each archetype: melee, defense, buff, control, assault, ranged, support and summon (epic ATs not included in this list). I probably should have looked at that first. I'll rework the page to use those terms. I think it's worth noting that "manipulation" appears to be in the name for Blaster secondary sets only (based on a cursory search) - and according to the Blaster AT page, those are classified as "support". And your icon for "support" on the Category_talk:Custom_Power_Set_Icons page looks like it might be for Defender type powers - which are listed on that page as "buff" power sets. While Defenders are a "support" AT, I think using the existing nomenclature is important, so I'll rework this page to include the existing names for sets, per the AT pages.
- As for Pets, if you look on the left column, I do have a spot for non-MM pet power sets to be placed. Although they will no doubt fit into other categories as well (fire control, for example, with its imps) I think it's important to gather the non-MM pet sets in their own place. It is self-evident that MM primaries have pets - that's the whole point of the AT. But people may not want to be an MM, but still want to know what sets they can get that have pets. Having a pets column would lead to duplicated sets - so I'll stick with a "summon" column, in keeping with the list in the previous paragraph, which will contain MM primaries, and then put other pet sets in the Pets row.
- *I don't want a column for each AT, because it would make many sets appear in a row multiple times. There's so much overlap with things like the melee ATs, that it would just make the table larger unnecessarily.
- Felderburg 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)