MSC Wiki

[Charles445]

I vaguely remember there being a wiki at one point. It seems to have disappeared, which is unfortunate.
I think bringing back a wiki would be a good idea, and would be even better if it was kept spoiler free.
It would just contain stuff like overviews of maps, like the level requirements and descriptions and whatnot, and otherwise easy to find information. It would remove the hassle of finding good maps to train on for your level, what weapon is a good choice for a level 9 blunt arms player and whatnot.

I'd be willing to work on one using Wikia, but if the old one is still floating around then there would be no need.

 

[Thothie]

At risk of necro posting... How dependable is Wikia in your experience? At avoiding adbots and retaining information / up time? It looks tempting.

Our wiki died with the site migration (and was slagged with bots well before them). I dunno if the original text is available, or how well it would mesh with Wikia's formatting. Also not sure how robustly featured Wikia is - if it'd be good enough, for instance, to setup a scripting wiki for it - though it'd almost certainly be more fully featured than the one we had.

I was considering setting one up on my host, and even experimented with some primitive PHP based wikis, but alas, they flew the coop.

 

[Charles445]

Wikia is nice although it is a lot more "open" to other editors. With Wikia it'd be harder to maintain a standard for pages. IIRC the problem with the previous wiki was the vandalism, and Wikia would be much worse.

The old wiki was brought back after this thread, so there shouldn't be a need for Wikia anyway. I've been slowly updating the existing wiki, currently working on the weapons pages, then will move to adding items and maps.
It's going about as fast as I can play the game, discover things, and take pictures, and I'm making sure it doesn't have spoilers.
I hope to have every item registered so you can search for anything in your inventory and find out what's up (no information on the items if they are quest related or have secret uses of course, but just a page to acknowledge its existence).

It's going to be a lot of work though, since there's so much stuff in the game after 8 years. Because of this I'm marking any items I don't have pictures for with an 'unknown' image, so we can go through the list of pages with 'unknown' in use and fix them up later.

 

[Thothie]

IIRC the problem with the previous wiki was the vandalism, and Wikia would be much worse.

Darn. If there was an option for an authenticator that required human attention, I don't think it'd be a problem, but otherwise...

We did have some minor issues with folks posting spoilers and non-devs making up their own lore, but the big problem was ad bots. Potions of Viagra entries, everywhere.

As far as editing limitation, the biggest problem was a lack of image embedding.

The old wiki was brought back after this thread, so there shouldn't be a need for Wikia anyway.

It was? Where? :\

 

[Charles445]

It was? Where? :\

http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.ph ... =Main_Page
There's a link on the home page as well.

Speaking of image embedding, it appears to be working quite well.
http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.ph ... handed_Axe One of the pages I've updated.

Darn. If there was an option for an authenticator that required human attention, I don't think it'd be a problem, but otherwise...

Oh, it was bots? I thought it was people.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Wikia has bot protection, I haven't seen a Wikia wiki with visible damage.

 

[Thothie]

Well shit... Why does no one tell me these things? My old msc wiki link is no good no more.

Looks like a newer wiki, so I guess it has more features - like image embedding.

And the problem was mostly ad bots, some of a partially organic, third world nature, no doubt.

I kinda frown on the "can be purchased or found" type things that Orochi scattered over our weapon descriptions, but meh... I'd kinda like to put up weapon stats, but MiB frowns on that - though I do have a lil proggie to grab em all and out HTML format real quick.

 

[Charles445]

What happens with the wiki is completely up to you. I can work with whatever guidelines your team sets.
The "can be purchased or found" things are redundant so it'd be fine to remove.
Weapon stats are already located on the Weapon Proficiency Levels page. They could be removed if there is a problem with it, although I find it very handy when setting up other pages (it has accurate names and proficiency requirements)

 

[Thothie]

A list of the proficiency levels, at least, would be nice, as there's on way to find them in game without purchasing the item... And I wouldn't mind a more vague comment, "Available at your local weapons dealer", or such, for the starter weapons, and such, I suppose.

I don't think there's a real easy way to find the level requirements in game, if you actually meet them... I suppose I should run that old proggie again, and send you off the list it generates - though it's old, so it won't handle some of the newer weapons (such as polearms), and doesn't handle special abilities and the like - just base stats, and I think, level requirements. Some items get tweaked, incrementally, with each patch, but the wiki's never kept up with the game anyways.

I have another one that gathers monsters - though it fubars on some - mostly those instances where a single script contains multiple monster types (such as the elemental spectrum of animated armors, khaz cultists, bandits, and the like). I suppose MIB hasn't set down any edict regarding posting monster stats. Given we've control over map content, online at least, I wouldn't mind putting up the script names to encourage more creativity among the mappers either. Hell, I could give you the monster script sources so you could gather the stats where the HTML fails, I suppose.

 

[Charles445]

I think we should avoid posting monster stats, as a large part of fighting monsters the first time is figuring out what they are weak against.
Also about the proficiencies, my plan is to have my own level 1 everything character who I would give the items. This would let me get the polearm level requirements. If you can send me the proficiencies of the others it'd be very helpful, as I assume your prog returns the accurate item names as well (The issue with item names was that names changed over time and there were multiple ways to say the same thing, like Dull Hammer and Training Hammer).

Before changes do get made though we should figure out a good base for it all.

For weapons, I like the name, picture, proficiency, general description, and special moves. I think this is enough information for people to want to use the wiki, and little enough that it isn't a spoiler (don't include where to find it, its role in lore, etc.)

For spells I was thinking a page for each with a description of what it does. There would be tome and/or scroll pictures depending on what is obtainable of that spell. These would be the easiest to set up.

For items (excluding spells and weapons) I'd put a "Quest Item" boolean along with the picture. If it is not a quest item, the alternate text of the item would be included (to avoid spoiling quests). It seems like minimal information to give, but it would help players understand what are quest items and what are not.

For maps I'd include the suggested Level and HP requirements (which are totally wrong most of the time but hey whatever), a brief spoiler free description (preferably the one given ingame) and a picture of the spawn point (excluding transition only maps).

For enemies... enemies are a touchy subject, as pictures are spoilery and descriptions are spoilery. Probably just an acknowledgement that they exist? Then again that'd be pretty pointless as a page. Not sure what to do about enemies.


One last thing, mind if I go through the existing pages and get rid of the useless ones? (ones with like one sentence, ones that talk about some trivial thing, etc.)

 

[Thothie]

Sounds good. And go ahead and remove crap, there's a lot of entries I'd like removed.

The monster stats I have are a bit vague, as they are just base stats, and monsters get adjusted up and down the board pretty regularly... Plus, in a lot of instances, the environment the monster is in, how much it favors or hinders the beast, has more to do with the difficulty to defeat it than the monster stats themselves.

But what mappers really need to know is height, width, scriptname, and some vague idea as to the base difficulty and behavior of the mob (ie. can it navigate quickly, and is it ranged) - possibly elemental resistances / attack, as well, but the script diver isn't very reliable in that regard. It's not even very reliable on height and width - nor XP - and can't really give you much of any information in regards to behavior.

I'm going to send you a PM with the results of that script diver proggie in a sec, with both weapons and monster stats, to do with as you will. I'm including some scripts for the bits that the old program can't handle (I dun have the time right now to tweak it up so it can). You can spread the HTML tables to whomever, but keep the scripts (and item scriptnames) to thineself, plzktnx, lest it encourage hackers.

 

[Charles445]

Teaching some friends (three of them) how to play MSC, also got a lot of college work.
This'll go a bit slowly, but I am actively planning it.

EDIT: Also I can't delete bad pages, so I'm marking them with a deletion image.

 

[MrJohnson]

Well, even if some of the quests are just vaguely explained on the wiki - I'm against deleting those Pages you've marked with your image.

I remember coming to MS:C a while ago and I crawled through the wiki to learn about the game - There was not much info back in the days, so deleting anything viable from these infos wouldn't be the best ideas.

I can understand if we could remove quest walkthroughs - but an overview of the quests with little descriptions (like this) is noob friendly and also very nice to have those pieces of information.

 

[Thothie]

I can understand if we could remove quest walkthroughs - but an overview of the quests with little descriptions (like this) is noob friendly and also very nice to have those pieces of information.

Might need a better example - given that said NPC comes out and explains that to you, as soon as you enter the map, that's not exactly useful information. But it's largely these single sentence entries, with no useful information, that need to be stripped. Not as critical as those few that outright violate the rules though.

 

[MrJohnson]

http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.ph ... ain_Quests ->
http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.ph ... diak_Quest


This might be a better example. Though it seems obvious for us old-timers, it is still useful info for someone who has never done the map/quest.

 

[zeus9860]

I think quest locations are enough for new players to go on exploring the area... Those descriptions aren't really necessary as it kinda gives away the quest already. People only need to know locations to go explore. Though i do think a guide of some sort for complex quests should be done. A guide that shows mostly where to go (perhaps the title given to each map related to the quest rather than the mapname to make it obvious).

 

[Charles445]

The problem I have with simply marking the beginnings of quests is how strongly it directs the player. I always find it thrilling to discover a new quest by talking to someone or finding some item without having any knowledge of it beforehand. I can understand that beginners might need a head-start on quests, but isn't that what Edana is for? The quests there are very straightforward and support the idea that is it good to talk to people. It even encourages players to search on other maps for the right path.

http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.php?title=Bloodrose_Mountain_Quests ->
http://www.msremake.com/mswiki/index.ph ... diak_Quest

I think the Kodiak page gives a bit too much information. The only thing a beginner would need to know is who to talk to (and even in that case, are Kodiak killers considered beginners? [/noobtalking]). Even then the player could easily just walk around the map and notice the pretty hard to miss NPC. If it were to be cut down, I'd just leave it at "Talk to Findlebind". Not saying where specifically, not saying how, not saying when, just who and in what map. I have no idea who Atholo is. However, from this point on, whenever I hear Atholo I will think of Bloodrose. That's one of the risks of putting information about quests on there - players will associate the quest names and details with the maps. If I ever need to do something with some Atholo character I'll know where to go, not because of an in-game hint but because of an external source.

Those descriptions aren't really necessary as it kinda gives away the quest already. People only need to know locations to go explore.

Yes exactly.

I think quest locations are enough for new players to go on exploring the area...

Like I said above, I'd be sorta alright with quest locations. Sorta. Nothing beats exploring the map yourself.

Though i do think a guide of some sort for complex quests should be done.

Nooo, half the fun of completing a quest is figuring out how to. Quests themselves are usually running from point A to B. Knowing where to go makes it meaningless.

A guide that shows mostly where to go (perhaps the title given to each map related to the quest rather than the mapname to make it obvious).

Hinting/Telling the player what map to go to on some of these quests would be total spoilers, as the quests can often be solved by researching lore and taking notes. For instance my friend Jewfro read the description of a particular quest item and figured out the next place to go. He was paying WAY more attention than I was. I'm refraining from saying which quest to avoid spoilers.

I might be trying too hard to make the experience as spoiler-less as possible. We should talk about it some more, maybe come to an agreement on a style for quests on the wiki.

I was thinking something like...

Quests Available: 2
(5 - 10) Gonzalo
(10-15) Inn Keeper

Basically just information on recommended levels for the quest and who to talk to first. It doesn't give the player any idea of the contents of the quest other than when they should give it a shot.

 

[zeus9860]

Nooo, half the fun of completing a quest is figuring out how to. Quests themselves are usually running from point A to B. Knowing where to go makes it meaningless.

Hinting/Telling the player what map to go to on some of these quests would be total spoilers, as the quests can often be solved by researching lore and taking notes. For instance my friend Jewfro read the description of a particular quest item and figured out the next place to go. He was paying WAY more attention than I was. I'm refraining from saying which quest to avoid spoilers.

I might be trying too hard to make the experience as spoiler-less as possible. We should talk about it some more, maybe come to an agreement on a style for quests on the wiki.

I was thinking something like...

Quests Available: 2
(5 - 10) Gonzalo
(10-15) Inn Keeper

Basically just information on recommended levels for the quest and who to talk to first. It doesn't give the player any idea of the contents of the quest other than when they should give it a shot.

You don't understand my point, maps have a title along with their name. For example there is the "dark forest" if i'm not mistaking, you can clearly guess that one out i'm pretty sure of it. It doesn't totally give away the location, people will go on thinking: "where is this so called Dark Forest?". Quests like the bloodstone ring really do need a guide, last i checked that f*cking quest was a damn mess, not even sure if it ever got fixed, i know it got changed quite a few but never bothered to do it again after seeing it majorly broken months ago.
Also new people usually rage over that quest, at some point they dislike one of the things requested in the quest, which is requested near the end, in a town. Not sure if it still remains the samething now, but it's one step in the quest which pisses people off and most of them don't have a clue what to do to keep it going.
So telling a person to go to the "Dark Forest" instead of the traditional mapname, it will make them think what map could it actually be, once they find out what map it is then they have to explore every corner of the map to find out what's in it.

Then again there is a difference between hinting and telling. Hinting a player towards something is a reasonable choice, hell people do it all the time, even on the forums. How's that going to spoil everything for a player? Example: It's like when Thothie hints forum lurkers like myself when a patch is on the works, or close to be done and when to expect a release, that's hinting.
Telling a player where he should go next will much likely include spoilers that will beat the purpose of exploring maps, as you can see, hinting != telling. They are connected but have different meanings. Example: When Thothie puts the spoiler tags in the patch logs when a patch gets released, the part of the log that shows what is new and what got changed that patch, that's telling.
Since both are someway connected to each other, let's just sum up that hinting is the "soft" way of leaking info while telling is the "heavy" way of leaking info, which could end up spoiling things. Probably an easier explanation this way!


That code section you just made, you are hinting players as to where they should go next. (10-15) Inn Keeper, we currently have 5 towns, 4 of which are easily accessible, the 5th one is for the higher levels to get access to. (10-15) is pretty much a spoiler, Inn Keeper is most likely a hint. See what i did there?

 

[Charles445]

Makes sense. (also the 10-15 thing was totally random, I'm not mentioning anything specifically lol)
I guess giving transition titles only would be nice.
About the bloodstone ring quest, I haven't discovered it yet so I can't really say anything about it.

 

[Charles445]

So, any final idea for how quest pages should be?

 

[Thothie]

I'd keep it simple and vague, if ya list em at all. Most all the quests are either intuitive or unavoidable. The obvious exception would be the bloodstone quest, but that's deliberately vague - forcing you to have been around the world quite a bit before you know where you have to go, or to ask around.

 

[StrikerAY]

There should be a list of what NPCs are in the area or something. The bloodstone ring quest tells you where to go next until you reach one guy who says just the name of the next NPC; who you will never find by just exploring because he is on a map that has no entrance, you must votemap to it. Some way to find where an NPC of a certain name would help alot with that quest while not giving spoilers as to what else is on the map.

I hope that was spoiler free enough and still made the point.

 

[Thothie]

Well, the idea is to have forced you to have been around the world enough times, disconnected maps or otherwise, that you'd think to yourself, "Oh THAT guy!" and/or force you to hunt for folks on-line who have.

Been pondering an actual main line quest, that'd be more step-by-step n00b friendly, that may eventually cover all those missions as well... But gotta finish up with the remainder of stuff for this patch before I start on that.