FANDOM



It seems there's a bit of disagreement on how to handle listing (sub)classes on things like quest rewards which depend on class. The opinions seem to be either for listing all subclasses (e.g., Assassin, Ranger, etc.) or using the class names (e.g., Predator). I have an opinion but I'd like to see what others think before I throw my 2 cents in. So, lets discuss. --lordebon (talk) 05:35, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

When I started adding the reitemization quest rewards, there was no standard format. I ended up going with classes because...
  1. Zam displayed rewards by class unless subclass was specified
  2. EQ2i by default used classes in the reward templates (i.e. {{AllBrawlerCats||}}, {{AllShamanCats||}}, etc...)
On the apparent proposal to start using classes, the biggest advantage to using it is that it's the absolute clearest. The disadvantage is that, for example, listing every non-Beastlord scout class on scout daggers, or every non-channeler priest on priest wands, is going to create a long string of text that on people with smaller browsers or who use Wikia New Look, causes wraparound. I personally don't think there's any clarity issues in using class rather than subclass. The third option would be to use the informal terms and go with "plate tank" "leather healer" "non-beasty scout", etc... which I don't like because it's not professional-sounding, but some people prefer it.
My opinion is that we should continue with the format I've been using, if only because I've formatted several dozen articles that way and going through them all and changing it would be most tedious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McJeff (talkcontribs) 04:00, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
I have been adding the specific class (ie warrior, berserker, assassin, predator) instead of the class grouping (not sure if you want to call that the subclass or the other way around but it seems pointless to argue over a word definition when it's not the subject).
I think it's clearer about exactly what class can use the equipment. I never understood the focus on class groupings (ie predator, crusader, etc) for much of the wiki's templates because the actual gameplay in EQ2 barely references it at all (I've only seen it during character creation). I like to make wiki's content that is easy to understand for new players and making the emphasis on these class groupings (ie predator, crusader) adds a level of unexplained information to an article. It is so much easier to just match up your actual class with an item than going through and figuring out what your class grouping is.
I'm also certain there would be a way to go through and automatically convert these class groupings into just the class but I'm still reading about automating scripts and other approaches to modifying data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jado818 (talkcontribs) 10:17, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Character classes (meaning the grouping of 2 or more subclasses) are still a fact in game, as they dictate betrayal class change options and are the names of the one AA tree. Some other things in game reference them as well, but for new players I can see that they might not understand what they are.
I see the point of both sides here, and I think there's a happy middle to be had. First, I believe listing out all subclasses is a bit tedious and long and unneeded in most cases. Where it's just one class (2 subclasses) that use it, I think listing them out could be helpful for newer players; e.g., instead of saying (Druid) we could use (Fury, Warden). In the bulk of other cases I think we can find a better way of listing them that is based on what determines who can use it / who can select it as a reward. I actually like the terms along the lines of "Plate Fighters" or "Plate Wearers" (for both fighters & priests) as they're easily understood and cover a longer list of subclasses without having to list them out one by one. We can also use "Scouts except Beastlord" rather than listing the 6 scouts out for the same reason.
Thus my proposal is to use the simplest description possible using archetypes, subclasses, and armor types (and avoid using classes). For grouping of items, I suggest we group them by classes rather than alphabetically when there is multiple rewards and alphabetical grouping results in splitting options for a given subclass up in the list (with the order being up to the editor, but I'd say a standard order of Fighter, Scout, Priest, Mage is easiest). An example of this method based on Pretty Ponies, All in a Row follows. What are your thoughts on this? --lordebon (talk) 16:28, December 28, 2013 (UTC)


Your suggestion is a definite improvement imo. Maybe the intro sentence could be changed like this, that way if somebody is confused by what plate classes means they can just click the class link that is provided above the equipment listing.

Jado818 (talk) 16:45, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for current class configuration.Edit

Character Creation 001

Character Creation Screen 1

Character Creation 002

Character Creation Screen 2

Character Creation 003

Character Creation Screen 3

Character Classes SOE Website

SOE Website

I was trying to track down the reasoning and source for the current class set up because there is no mention of these class groupings (predator, crusader, etc) in the actual game, besides a monster being called predator or crusader, but certainly no reference in regards to actual player characters.

I wanted to verify this so I went in game and took some screenshots of the actual character creation screen.

This is the first menu you reach when you reach the character creation screen (screenshot 1). It asks you to pick an archtype. Fighter, Priest, Mage, Scout.


After that screen, the next menu asks you to pick a class (screenshot 2). Guardian, Berserker, Monk, Bruiser, etc.



Then you are asked to pick your race / alignment (Screenshot 3). From there you pick your city and start the game.


I never saw a mention of class groupings (ie predator, crusader, etc)

I have also done the betrayal quest once before. I switched from Qeynos to Freeport citizenship and It never mentioned these predator, crusader etc either. All the quest mentioned about classes was upon completion of swapping citizenship, it said was speak to your class trainer. And the class trainers are labeled things like Scout Trainer, Priest Trainer, Beastlord Trainer etc..

No where does it say Predator Trainer or Crusader Trainer anywhere in the game.


I wanted to understand why the wiki is being labeled this way so I tried to track down the source of this organization. The only reference I could find was the SOE website. (Screenshot 4)

You will notice that it mentions the crusader, predator, etc. I'm not sure if they are implying those are the actual classes though. It Says the archtypes above (fighter, priest, mage, scout) and then it has a class grouping on the side (predator, crusader, etc) then the actual class listing (guardian, warrior)

I'm not saying that class grouping references (crusader, predator, etc) should be purged from the wiki. I just don't think it should be the emphasis of the wiki because it is not actually in the game (in regards to player characters) in any form. It could be helpful in making people understand similar classes for betrayal but even so, when I betrayed I wasn't locked into the class grouping (which was never mentioned at all in game), I was free to choose whatever class I wanted.

My suggestion is keeping mention of predator / crusader / etc as a reference on the class page. Maybe in a section called class groupings. We could include player defined groupings also like plate fighters, non-plate healers etc


To try an summarize my thoughts on this, I think the rationale for grouping all the classes by these class groupings (crusader, predator, etc) is ambiguous at best.

I'm thinking the class page could be organized something like this. There could be some sort of table or chart made to pretty it up, but I just wanted to show a basic idea of what I think is a decent organization.



The path from Fighter to crusader to SK for example was in game at the start of everquest 2, every char started as archtype then at level 10 you needed to do a quest to get to the class and then to the subclass.
at some update i forgot which one it revamped so you start directly as subclass now.
In game you still can see Crusader and such on the Alternate Advance Tab, and some named fights still call out for archtypes or classes in the script.
The quest rewards of the ToV expansion are more like plate, chain, leather or cloth with the exception that plate tanks can't use the chain, leather or cloth.
--- ChillispikeSig  Chillispike-bubble 17:27, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

I see, Even so the games emphasis doesn't seem to be focused on the groupings (predator, crusader, etc). It probably made more sense to organize the wiki in this fashion back when these groupings still had some relevance or impact on the game. It doesn't make sense now to organize the classes based on an artifact left over from previous game updates.

It still seems like ambiguous reasoning to organize all the classes based off a mention of one category of Alternate Advancements. Jado818 (talk) 18:09, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

What is it you'd like see changed? We don't hyper-emphasize class vs subclass in any large way. We use it where it has a relation to the game (AAs mainly currently) and in some convenience things (e.g., AllPredatorCats type templates). I understand you think it better to use subclasses, but it's hard to get what you want to change when you're not actually pointing out where these changes you want to make are.
If you're talking in relation to the quest rewards thing, I agree and you seem to mostly agree with what I proposed as well. But what organization on the wiki are you referring to in wanting to change it? Is it just the Class page, which mentions the classes above the subclasses? If so, I disagree there, as it is still how the game is fundamentally set up, even if the names of the classes aren't used much in the game compared to the past. --lordebon (talk) 04:50, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

I think that SoE themselves have signaled their intention that sub-classes are now in fact the defacto definition of class as they have removed most mentions of these class groupings (predator, crusader, etc) from the game. Only one mentioned so far is that one category of AA's which seems more like an artifact left over from a game update than an intentional design decision. The character creation screen itself is all I can really point to to support this. It clearly says pick a class and shows the old definition of sub-class. Also when you do a betrayal quest it say speak to your class trainer and the class trainers are labeled things like "ranger class trainer" or "shadowknight class trainer".

That being said, my suggestion is not to remove all mention of these class groupings, just make sure the wiki is on the same page when talking about classes. Even this wiki's own character creation guide speaks about the old definition of sub-class as a class.

It seems like the wiki here is struggling to maintain the old definition of what a class is for a few particular tables/categories even though the entire game has moved onto a new definition of what a class is.

That said, my proposal would be for categories like the Equipment By Class category for example, I could make three tables in the top of the automatic category list to help guide people to the proper information.

It would be

  • Adventure classes (ranger, beastlord, etc)
  • Tradeskill classes (sage, woodworker, etc)
  • Then a mention of the old class groupings like predator or crusader (even though nobody would ever look for equipment in this fashion because there is no gear labeled this way.)

The above would be an example of emphasizing the class groupings even though it has no bearing whatsoever on the game play and has no practicality.

I mean it's fine to keep the grouping imo, but I don't see it as being necessary and would be more helpful if those pages were better organized in tables by old class definition / new class definition so it is immediately apparent what is relevant to the game and what is just kept for historical purposes / curiosity.

The class page itself could probably have a paragraph about the definition of classes has changed through the years (specifically Update:57) and how the new class definition is set up. I could be ok with the current class table remaining even though I don't think it adds anything of value to EQ2 gameplay but I do think a mention of the new class definition should be made.

I also think it would be helpful to have a listing of class groupings on the class page like plate fighters or non-plate healers etc.

I'm sure there are other equipment category pages that could be rearranged as well to emphasize the current class set up more instead of trying to organize things by the class groupings (predator , crusader, etc). The emphasis should be on class / alignment which are what is relevant in EQ2.

Definitions do change over time, games get updated and it can be frustrating and annoying to have to change how you perceive a game system. The unfortunate reality is the old definition of classes is no longer relevant which should be apparent by looking at the actual in game character creation system or referencing any page that talks about classes (almost all pages refer to classes as the actual class (berserker, monk, ranger, etc).

Having the old definitions clearly defined and the new current definition clearly defined will remove any confusion new players may have as well as any misperceptions old players have. Jado818 (talk) 15:46, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not quite getting what it is you want to change. Can you give me concrete examples of a page you'd change and how you'd change it? You can either make a sandbox and show the edit or even make an edit to an actual page to demonstrate. To my knowledge we rarely ever use the two-subclass "class" names on the wiki.
When it comes to the equipment categories, they're already inclusive (e.g., all Warrior items are automatically part of the Berserker category, plus zerk-only items), so I don't see a reason to delete the categories like Category:Warrior Equipment. Those categories are all so cumbersome and massive that I doubt anyone uses them to browse for gear when far more capable systems exist (e.g., on EQ2U).
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm dragging this out, but I just honestly do not get what it is you'd like changed, since as I've said we do not use the "class" names (in the old EQ2 sense) very much at all. If it's just changing a few articles that may use the word "subclass" to use "class" as opposed to class then that's fine, since when folks say "class" the normally mean that rather than the older 2-subclass meaning. For the class table and the Class article, I agree the top can be rewritten to be a bit more clear but I think keeping the "Warrior" type classes in the table does serve a use when properly explained/prefaced in the text, mainly for reasons relating to betrayal and class-change (as well as AAs). --lordebon (talk) 02:59, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
I won't delete anything. I'll try to add some tables to a few of the equipment categories and explain the differences between the old definition of classes and the new definition on the class article.
I don't think anything I do will be the final product (formatting can almost always be improved or changed). I just figured I'd explain here before I went ahead and made some changes so others didn't freak out and delete my efforts.
I think your suggestion about labeling things as non-plate healers etc is still a good idea. I'd just like to add info on those player defintions on the class page in a section called class groupings. I'll come up with something tomorrow though because seeing is probably easier than writing about it. Jado818 (talk) 03:08, December 31, 2013 (UTC)


I made some changes to the class page. I added a picture I found, I think it was entered in some sort of EQ2 art competition like 5 or 6 years ago. Not sure if you want to reference it some how or give credit but here is the link. (I don't think the link is the owner of the content either).

http://www.destructoid.com/everquest-artwork-featured-in-expose-6-89848.phtml


I also started on a class groupings section below the class table. I'm going to try to figure out how to make the underline that goes across the section. I think with the underline it would look a lot cleaner. Like

==This is underlined==

=====but this is not underlined=====

I mean I could type out a string of ---- 's but I don't think that would be the best approach.

I was doing it this way so people can link directly to a class grouping definition if they wanted too. Like this is how you would link to a Plate Fighter.

Gonna try to come up with tables for equipment categories some time soonish.


I think something like this could be a decent way to set up reward sections on quest pages. War of Fear.

I'm positive I could devise a means to automate switching to that format given time lol. I've been reading about this automating/botting stuff but have only really messed with C++ so far. Gonna download the java ide and try to learn that soon. It'd probably be at the very least a few months until I can do anything useful web based though.

Figured, I'd toss my suggestion out there for a format. I'm not asking you guys to do all the hard work and change everything, I just didn't want my efforts to get deleted in the mean time. Jado818 (talk) 16:55, December 31, 2013 (UTC)


Changes to the Class page look good. I've edited it a bit further myself to add a bit more history; it was actually all the way back in LU19 that players stopped ever being a "class" and just picked a final class/subclass at creation.
The War of Fear rewards also look good, though I've removed the -- just to make it a bit shorter (either -- or parenthesis should work, but both is just a bit overkill).
Now, for underlines and headings, I can help you there, it just depends on what you're trying to do. If you just want a big horizontal line across the page, just do ---- and the wiki converts that into an HTML horizontal rule. If you just want a place you can link to without needing to add it as a header you can use <span id="anchor name"></span> and that'll create a place to link to as PageName#anchor_name just as though you added it as a header. I can make that into a template easy enough as well. --lordebon (talk) 18:27, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll use the "----" to set the horizontal line.

There is still one point I'd like to verify about the class page. I could not find any reference to the class groupings (predator, crusader, etc) during my run through of the betrayal timeline. There may have been some in the past but there certainly aren't any now. I think the information as it stands on the class page is incorrect at the moment. When you finish doing the betrayal time line you receive a quest that tells you to speak to your class trainer. The class trainers are labeled things like "Ranger Class Trainer", "Guardian Class Trainer" etc. There are no archtype class trainers or "predator, crusader, etc" class trainers. I think that information should be verified before it's added but I didn't see any mention of those class groupings at all during my run through of the betrayal timeline.

Basically I don't think the betrayal timeline references the class groupings at all. Although I think a chart could be added to the betrayal timeline to show class equivalences between the alignments.Jado818 (talk) 18:51, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

It's not that the betrayal line mentions the old classes, it's that which class you can chose to betray to is dictated by the old "class" hierarchy. Wardens are Furies are druids, and as one of them you can chose to be either but you can't pick say defiler. Thus even though the quests don't mention druid at all, a druid still can only ever be one of the two druid subclasses. Basically even though the old "class" hierarchy isn't mentioned it still is a part of the game.
Also, as for the horizontal rules, use them sparingly. Historically they're used only rarely on the wiki and they really don't fit in when used too much. I think for the different class groups they're way overkill. How does the table look instead? It's pretty easy to add to, and it's a lot more compact. --lordebon (talk) 22:07, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
I see, I will defer to your judgement on the matter as I don't have extensive knowledge on betrayal. Only the one time I went through it and I did end up picking a class from the same archtype.
The table does look better. I was thinking about turning it into a table but you beat me too it ;p
Tomorrow I might try to make the table use the same color scheme as the other tables on the class page. Then maybe split it up into small tables for each header that way it can be linked still directly or try to figure out that page anchor thing you linked above. I think the class page is almost "good" though Jado818 (talk) 23:27, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like the setup I made the tables at the bottom. I just have to figure out how to make all of the table cells the same size and offset the cell with the character classes that make up "Plate-Fighter" or "Non-Plate Healer" Jado818 (talk) 16:00, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.