This is really great work, folks. I like what's being added here and I want to thankyou all for your hard work.--Kodia 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guild Cloak Designer costs correct? Edit

Thanks for this wonderful page. It's going to be really useful.

There's at least one obvious error, a status upkeep cost of "2,5000" But the costs don't bear the same relationship to one another as all the other amenities. For example, it's 1p 500,000 status usually. I don't have the correct info, so I put it to you.

Toldain 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. The upkeep is 2 gold, 2500 status. Laniala 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fifty Hall Guards? Edit

One does wonder why you are allowed to buy "up to 50" hall guards when they each take an amenity slot AND the max amenities is 30!! They're purely decorative, so why the heck do they use an amenity slot? --Sigrdrifa 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PvP? Is there a difference on those servers? (Not that I can fathom any reason why that would be the case either...) So, no clue. Maybe just a military appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodia (talkcontribs)

They each take up an amenity slot? My original understanding was that you could place as many guards as you liked (they would just cost 1 slot for having them). The little [1] reference supports that, since it says "This amenity counts as 1 amenity regardless of how many of the same ones you get." If they're each taking up a slot, I'd give that a /bug. --Lordebon 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
We placed 50 guards, 5 mailboxes, and 5 mannequins in our guild hall on the test server, and didn't run into any unexpected problems in regards to the amenity count. In our live guild hall we currently have 10 guards, and no problems there either, so far. So not sure what the problem might be, except maybe a difference from PvE to PvP.
If the footnote text is unclear, go ahead and change it to make it more precise and clear. The actual footnote text is found in the Mailbox section of the text. Laniala 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So ultimately what are the guards useful for? Do they do something? Because right now we have it classed under the "General" amenities and it seems to me that unless it *does* something, it should be listed under decoration. --Kodia 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems they currently don't do much, even on PvP servers, except make the guild hall look less empty. Although, the classification "general" is what Sony has placed it under in the guild hall's amenity window, and that is what the page here currently reflects. Laniala 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can dress them differently/use different races, chess could become a spectator sport. Sell tickets... break out the Brell Day kegs... Tailors could sell clothing in the colors of the sides.... Janze-Nek ComsCons 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that. I was just thinking the same thing. And with the tile in the halls....oooh a decoration idea.--Kodia 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Major revision: changed some columns Edit

To me, the "Category" column is currently superfluous since the tables are split by category in the first place. Any time a table has the same value all the way down a column (with zero exceptions) to me that column needs a good reason to be there. And here, category just doesn't do it. As such, I've removed that column (except from the last table, the "Delayed Amenities" one, where it technically makes sense). I've also simplified the Good/Evil columns for the first table into one. Again, since there's only 3 states ("Good only," "Evil only," and "Both") two columns seems to be overkill to me. Ditto for the "Tier n" columns -- they've been clumped under one. All in all, I think it makes the tables easier to read. I've also used a bit of a hack to make the second two columns of the first table look better in Firefox -- the autosort seems to add some hardcoded spaces before the sort button that makes things linebreak nasty-like. --Lordebon 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

new stuff Edit

not sure who was maintaining this pag

  • Achievement Counselor
  • Collection Binder
  • Mariner's Bell: Island of Mara

need moved out of "coming soon" to the correct current table, cant get in game right now to check which group their in, thanks --Uberfuzzy 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's not already done by this weekend, I'll take care of it. --lordebon 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently missing;

  • Explorer's Globe of Norrath

Sakshale (talk) 02:50, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Druid Portal Edit

The release notes for the expansion describe a change in the function (one portal with destination choice). Can someone check in game and update if needed?

Hunter Hireling Edit

Does the Hunter Hireling find Magma rock fish too ? -- ChillispikeSig  Chillispike-bubble 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

never happened so far --Vraeth 06:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It does not, that is a special harvest not intended to be stockpiled by the hireling. --lordebon 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Slayer Poster Edit

Is the Slayer Poster still in some Guild Halls that had the amenity before it was removed?

If it was removed from the game entirely then I think it should be removed from the chart. It could be kept here on the talk page for historical purposes.

I'm of the opinion that main articles should only hold relevant / current information about game aspects / mechanics / etc.

I do like to make historical pages also for removed content. If there is enough "removed" guild hall amenities / features maybe an article can be made all by itself. Jado818 (talk) 21:04, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

We don't really need a separate page for two amenities, though. The items are still in the game; you just can't get them anymore. There are lots of articles here that keep old information around while noting the changes. LeraResan (talk) 02:45, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you undid my edit then. If you can not obtain them any more, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the "purchase cost" would be "Not Available"?

I'm going to put that part back in, can you verify what the upkeep cost is, if that still remains free.Jado818 (talk) 03:03, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Because part of the reason for keeping it is to see what the cost used to be, before it was removed. The big bold text in the notes section makes it clear enough that it was removed. LeraResan (talk) 03:06, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to remain then if it's still in game, I just don't like things that aren't in game in main articles was what I was saying. The wording probably needs to be fixed in the description then. It wasn't "Removed From Game", it was just made "Not Available For Purchase. Jado818 (talk) 03:08, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i made the wording for the description clearer. I don't think we need to strike out anything as that doesn't add any information to the article. The upkeep is still Free also so no point striking that out either. Jado818 (talk) 03:12, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

The wording was clear before - it's been removed. Having the price there adds information to the article - the cost of the amenity when it was around. Removing it makes the article lose information and makes it less useful. LeraResan (talk) 04:03, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted what you were saying yesterday. So this amenity is no longer in game in any form? If it's not in game then it doesn't need to be in the article imo. I don't see a reason to clutter up main page articles with content that has no relevance to the current game. With that being said I would move that to a historical page for removed content. This can't be the first thing that was removed from game and I'm certain it won't be the last.

If you want an example of why I hold this opinion look at the Nights of the Dead page.

Over half that page has information that is of no relevance to the current game. It's much better to organize content before it gets out of hand and it is something that hasn't been done on this wiki before. If the admins are content with letting everything remain clustered together I can live with it. I'm just stating my opinion that I think it's a bad system to keep outdated content with current content. Historical archive pages are the way to go for removed content. Jado818 (talk) 13:17, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Going to save the content here for historical purposes.

Name Purchase cost Upkeep cost Picture Description
Slayer Poster 1p 50,000 status 0c (free)
Guild hall amenity - slayer poster
This amenity was removed with the release of Sentinel's Fate, as your slayer information can now be found in the Achievements window in your journal.
A poster item that when clicked will bring up your kill count for the races you can get a slayer title.
Content is automatically saved in the history of the article, there's no real need to have separate pages for things like that. If the amenity is completely gone there isn't much need to have it on the page; what it used to cost doesn't really mean anything if it no longer exists. It's previous existence could be listed in a "removed amenities" section at the end perhaps, but listing it in with the active amenities is more likely to confuse people in my eyes.
As for the NotD article, the history of how the event has evolved over the years isn't necessarily a bad thing. It gives background and sometimes even information on year-specific items that may no longer be available. It could use some cleaning up so that information that doesn't matter specifically to that year (e.g., a long list of returning things) isn't duplicated in every year, but such is the nature of the wiki. There's always things to be improved, it just takes someone putting the time in and editing it to improve it. --lordebon (talk) 19:46, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.