Template talk:Loc

Mob/NPCs
Suggestion/Idea: Currently the :Loc shows Mob levels: even if like Base is selected. Could it be setup to hide that or be changed to NPC levels when Base or Town is selected. Probably should give an option since some bases are enemy controlled. --IceNekos 17:21, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Many towns have mobs that spawn just outside and attack the town. I would think that the mob levels for a town should be these. --Bal 20:32, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Good idea. --IceNeko 00:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Control Point
Should the name Control Point be added to the list because when you mouse over like Hydro Plant it's a control point so it can't really fall under outpost or base because it can be taken over later on. Ideas?
 * Since a Control Point != (Base or Town), yes, I think it should be a new type.

PAGENAME?
Imperium, I don't understand your last change here. How does cat:pagename properly replace the stuff that was there in the previous version? I'm most confused. --Bal 15:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Simple, if you are using the Loc for Alia Das, then it will be Category: Alia Das. Then, you just need Locations and you're all set. The CategoryTree Extension takes over from there. (Imper1um 17:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT))
 * And so cat:alia_das child of cat:wilderness child of cat:concordia child of cat:foreas ? --Bal 17:33, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

New Type
We need a new type to encompass caves, geographical regions, landmarks, and the like such as Enigma Caverns, Memory Tree Hill (currently incorrectly labelled as battlefield), Lower Eloh Creek, etc. Possibilities include an all encompassing Place, or perhaps separate types such as Cave, Landmark, and Region. Either way, we need a category for these orphaned locations in order to get a proper DPL Point of Interest section set up.

Mrspathi 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the whole sub-zone classification system could use an evaluation. To what degree is the type of a sub-zone location actually important? Could we classify them all as "Area"? Is the not-quite-dead forean above Pinhole Falls a PoI? Etc. - Dashiva (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The game itself classifies most of these things as Areas, but individual coordinates (like the not-quite-dead forean) should be a Point of Interest within an Area. --Bal 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that as a player looking for directions, I see no need to classify Enigma Caverns any differently than Gallman Meadow or Lake Tinctuan, but they should be separate from things like NPCs. Point of Interest is a really general term used in the game to label all sorts of geographical regions/landmarks, I don't think NPCs like the dying forean or the fixed soldier corpses in pools are really deserving of the title. Perhaps label them as Objects or Things?.\ Mrspathi 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I don't really think that mission objectives like that really ought to be classified under the location template anyway. My vote is for just adding an Area type and category. Mrspathi 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the discussion for NPCs (Talk:Boss) it's become implicitly agreed that we need a "NPC-like" template for non-NPC, non-enemy interaction points. So the objectives would be psuedo-NPCs rather than pseudo-locations. For generic places, "Area" will do fine. But what about bases, towns, outposts, posts, forts, control points, and all the other subtypes? - Dashiva (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking strictly as a player and not a wiki contributor, I don't care to distinguish between Base/Town/Outpost/etc, the prevalence of waypoints makes the specific amenities available at each rather irrelevant. I do care to distinguish Control Points, though, they are the only really unique base-like location. I assume Planet, Continent and Battlefield are givens, as should be Instance. Along with Area, I think that covers all location types necessary. Mrspathi 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Matches my thoughts more or less. However, I am a bit conflicted when it comes to the actual page content. Some places (like Gellman Meadow) are just places with no other significance than their location, while others (like Alia Das) are places where NPCs gather, leading to mission lists, vendor lists, trainer lists, etc. On one hand, I want to make this distinction clear. On the other hand, I can't think of a good way to do it. - Dashiva (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one absurdly simple solution is to just not include empty sections. Gallman Meadow has no trainers, vendors, or what have you, so it doesn't have those sections. Alia Das does, so it has them. Mrspathi 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So that's a vote for calling them both Area then. What about control points? Area (CP) matches the general presentation, but may be a bit too subtle. If we use the full Control point instead, it seems to suggest we should classify other bases as well. - Dashiva (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I just checked, and the actual in-game names for the control points are Landing Zone (CP), Imperial Valley (CP), Control Point: River-base Krimm, etc. Also, a large number of appropriate areas do have base, outpost, or village in their name already. Mrspathi 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)