Talk: Survarium Wiki

"Game Mechanics" page/link

This topic does not need a dedicated link on the front page, which is reserved for popular/common subjects. Most wikis relegate such subjects to the individual game's page or link to sections from other pages. Additionally, there is already a link to the individual game's page, so we do not need a duplicate redirect. — Nexolate (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree to that. The section I wrote is a tutorial to how the game actually works. This section is really needed to understand how to play. It must be on front page to answer basic questions to new players. It is still in early stages though and I ask you to leave it there and do not merge it with any other section for now so that I can continue working on it. I intend to explain as many things I can about he game for new players. --Pogs (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikis are not generally tutorial sites - they are primarily sources of information, usually to intermediate users who want to know more about the subject they are interested in. The links on the front page are used to funnel users to commonly accessed pages and portals to related subjects. Fundamental game mechanics like health, stamina, etc. are not normally popular topics as most players will pick these aspects up intuitively. Many other wikis understand this and choose not to dedicate front page links to these subjects. The only example I could find of such was the Official Team Fortress 2 Wiki, and even that strays into deep technical explanation which is not suitable for beginner players. — Nexolate (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to loose my time working on it as you undo what I do. Since it seems you're in charge and want to take all decisions by yourself, you'd better work alone. I undid most of my submissions so you don't get hindered in your work. I wish you good luck and success to you for the future :) Peace --Pogs (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I've "undone" is the front page link. Your contributions still existed, on the Weapons, Upgrades and Survarium page, at least up until you erased them yourself. If you feel the need to distance yourself from this project, that's your choice and I won't try to stop you. I just ask that you don't misconceive that as a defence against someone "wasting your time". — Nexolate (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it obtrusive to bury my content into pages barely viewable. Well I suggest that you act with others contributors with more diplomacy and less dictatorship to prevent them from stopping contributing. Even though I am quite new to wikis I took care not to erase or modify heavily other contributions to prevent hurting anyone. I thought a wiki was a team's work where you can work together and build something in a collegian way. I wanted to make a full section dedicated to new players, teaching them how to play the game and help them get the most of it knowing its mechanics to better build their character and gear, some kind of a "New players guide". But you feel it as secondary importance where I see at as primary importance. That is sad because you consider your opinion prevails over others. How much does it hurt you to let a link on the front page ? Whereas you feel the location page link on the front page is essential, I don't. Do i remove it ? No because I respect other people work and interest. If all contributors would redirect content that they alone feel unessential, the wiki would be unmanageable. So you should consider other's people opinions and try to reach a consensus instead of unilaterally undo, move, unlink or bury other people's work. Above all, I would contact the contributor PRIOR to heavily modify it's content to explain choices etc... If I had not dug into the wiki's history to see what you did, I could simply have thought you completely erased my content. A beginner contributor would think so. I don't think this is your purpose. If your politics remains the same, I don't want to work on something that can be unilaterally taken under control by one person to do what he wants with. // Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité - Peace from France --Pogs (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that there isn't enough room on the front page for links to every page - it would become unmanageable. Where do you draw the line? When the wiki gets so many links? No, you do it pre-emptively to stop it getting cluttered in the first place. I don't consider "my opinion rule over others". I examined carefully to find examples of wikis that featured tutorials or links to core mechanics on their front page before acting in case I was mistaken. I could find none. I could have asked you directly, but it's fairly obvious that you would have resisted, as this discussion shows. On the contrary, you determined that your page was the most important, more so than any other, and rather than consulting with others on whether and where it should be placed on the front page, arguably the most important area on the wiki, you placed it in the top featured link. Consider that. If you can come up with a reason other than tutorials/guides and provide examples, I promise to take it into consideration. Also, please stop implying that I "erase" or "heavily modify" other users contributions, as that is not and has never been the case. — Nexolate (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My point that a tutorial section must be first cause you need to learn the game first, not that is was the most important. Just a matter of time not importance. A game manual begins with the rules first then it goes with fluff, descriptions of equipment....etc.... Survarium, unlike most of other Fps, have complicated mechanisms that need to be understood to fully see the potential of the game. Its RPG elements are uncommon to FPS games. The proof is Vostok Games made videos to explain basic mechanisms linked on the game launcher, proof that this it can be important to new players. These videos while interesting do not suffice as they need a lot of time to be watched and need a good understanding of oral english etc... Another more thouroughful written support can be of great help to players that do not want to watch these videos and a good complement. Your argument that other wikis do not have new players guides is irrelevant : If you always do as others do, you never get better and improve things and never innovate. I never pretended my new players guide to be on top or anything, just that it is accessible. Right now a new player wanting to find info on to play the game do not even find my page. Maybe there is a middle between what I did (and as I said to you as a draft not yet finished) and burying it like you did. If you examine the front page carefully, you see a lot of free space in the about Survarium section. I think "The links" and "The News" sections can be smaller. Do the individual game modes need to have direct links on the front page rather than having a single "Game Modes" one ? For me there are many things we can do to make a better front page. I am confident that reworking this would leave a free line for a New Player guide or something. I n time i thought part of my info could be merge with Heroes section as it is redundant in some parts but I did not touched it on purpose to not bring too much changes without agreement from other contributors. My point was to develop my part in my corner to later fuse it with the rest smoothly instead of revolutionize everything right from the start. But you took it as arrogance where it was humility... I wish you would reconsider working together as team and help me make a great "new player" section. Peace from France --Pogs (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think that people come to wikis to "learn the game" though. A wiki is like an encyclopedia, covering individual things or concepts in detail. As such, I imagine people come to wikis when they want to look up something specific. I know I do! Therefore, the front page of a wiki should be dedicated to common things or concepts that people would want to quickly navigate to. A beginner's guide violates both of these aspects in that it doesn't cover a specific topic, rather touching on several; nor is it something that will be regularly accessed by the user base at large, only beginners and only initially.

On the subject of video guides, I personally don't find this convincing. Every company releases videos describing the basics of their game and Vostok's are no more different than any others' in that regard. As for comparisons to other wikis, it's true that striving for improvement is important but why don't more wikis feature something so obvious? Surely there's a reason. I assume it's probably for similar reasoning to that outlined above.

If you want to start a new discussion about the front page design, feel free. This one is getting somewhat bloated now, discussing multiple topics. The design of the front page is based on the Official Minecraft Wiki. Before you point it out, yes, they do have a tutorial section, but Minecraft is a construction-based sandbox game, relying heavily on unintuitive schematic knowledge, and not an adversarial FPS. Also, your edits were not "buried". 99% of articles would be "buried" by that definition, as there is limited space on the front page. See the opening paragraph for my reasoning on front page links. My recent article on Bundles was initially "buried" and I'm thinking of removing my own Store page front the front page, as it is not really a common topic.

Finally, merging. Honestly, the Hero page probably needs to go anyway. It was written by the original Curse staff way back when the game was first announced and is horribly out of date. I merged your edits with the Survarium page because that's usually where such things go. I figured it would be a good spot because it's literally the first link on the front page and is far more likely to get linked to or referenced than "game mechanics". It's not a discrimination against you or your edits. Your content was fine and I've never felt a need to change it. In fact, I thought your content on upgrades was so good that I moved it to its own individual page and have recently added it to the front page, as it is one of those common topics that many users will inevitably want to know more about. — Nexolate (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I can see this discussion doesn't seem to be moving toward a consensus. I'll add my thoughts here in hopes that it'll help smooth things out. Personally, I often do add some new player content to the main pages of wikis, such as links to guides or FAQs, but generally it is kept small. There is a good argument for it not being near the top, though. For a game like this, the page that is likely to be most popular will probably be the Weapons page, followed by other list pages linking to specific items. Ideally, those are the ones that should be the most accessible, which means it makes sense to keep new player content toward the bottom. In fact, it might be time to consider swapping the top and middle rows. — oOeyes

01:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Eyes. That sounds like a good compromise to me. I still don't really agree with it, since from my research it seems to be the exception rather than the norm, but I can get behind it. As for front page design, I'm going to create a new thread to discuss this, since we've had the current one for a while now. — Nexolate (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Front Page Redesign

So, on the subject of the front page. The original design for this front page was similar to its current form, but with less boxes. I believe it was a 3x2 grid, where as the current one is almost a 3x3 one. Both designs, though more so for the current one, are based off of the Official Minecraft Wiki.

The elements I think we have to keep, at least in some form, are the main content links (Gameplay & Objects), though they could be merged, and potentially the Version History section, though I can see how this could be reduced to just a link to the current version. One of the more popular designs with wikis is the image buttons approach (e.g. Battlefield, S.T.A.L.K.E.R or WARFRAME). Alternatively, we could go with a more hybrid approach similar to Team Fortress 2, Fallout or Mass Effect. Finally, we could just keep it the way it is now, just shift/resize some of the content.

Personally, I don't really have a preference. I'm used to the typical image buttons approach, but change is always good if it makes sense. Leave your thoughts below. — Nexolate (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the TF2 wiki's approach Nexolate posted with small pictures or Warframe's one. It's graphical and catch the eye. As a graphist I can make the pictures if you like. For the News section, it seems to me that we don't need as many lines as now. Maybe the last 3 news are enough on front page and more on full list ? Same for About Survarium, I think the space dedicated to it is too large. That would give room for pictures. Nexolate can you please undo my undos repost my contributions ? --Pogs (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can do that when I get back from work, in roughly 2 and a half hours. You could also do it if you like. I think the only page that's changed is Weapons and only some tweaks. Over the weekend I'll mock up a new front page design in the Sandbox, mimicking the WARFRAME Wiki's general style. — Nexolate (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I made that hastily mimicing the warframe wiki. Note that it's still early stages and sections are done roughly just to make an example. I need your help to refine. What do you think about it ? Front page draft. We can add another column or two to add more links. Side note : I found this site that is very interesting : http://viso36.hol.es/survarium/ --Pogs (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Another interesting site : http://en.svfan.ru/

New Front Page design

http://i.imgur.com/MAgxtX6.jpg - Large version.
http://i.imgur.com/87KSWBc.jpg - Small version.

So here is is. Took a while due to sorting out some technical aspects and choosing the appropriate imagery, but I finally got it done and ready to go.

Features:

Icon-based main links.
Clearly labelled guide and FAQ sections. (credit Pogs)
Recent Changes feed. (credit OOeyes)
Removal of needless text (blurb, social links, version history, etc.)
Centrally aligned to fit most monitors.
Background images which position to fit wider monitors.

Any thoughts? Changes? Criticism? Some of the icons may need redoing and we can always make the News and Recent Changes feeds bigger if needed. — Nexolate (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a significant improvement over what we have. The only thing I'd like to see is perhaps some proportional margins/padding between things to help it look better at larger resolutions, but that's low priority and something that can be experimented with later in a sandbox. It's more important that it actually works alright at smaller resolutions anyway, and it looks great there. — oOeyes

23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey eyes, thanks for dropping by again. Yes, when I made the mistake of posting the large version on the forums and asking for feedback without giving any context, my first 2 responses were that it was "small" and had too much "empty space".

I'm assuming you're talking about horizontal padding, as opposed to vertical? The main column is currently locked at something like 700px width, so we can probably style it to have a min-width of 700 and a max-width of something wider for more spacing. I don't want to go too crazy with it though, otherwise it might look a bit too stretched! — Nexolate (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm not concerned about expanding the vertical spacing. A max-width isn't a bad idea for super-high resolutions, but I think relying on spacing by a percentage would probably do a pretty good job by itself up to HD resolutions at least. If that doesn't work well enough, there's a well-supported CSS feature called media queries we can use to change the spacing for different browser widths. I can certainly help some from time to time, and I'm going to have to look over how the new design works on mobile devices anyway and perhaps make some adjustments. — oOeyes

20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I'll play around with some percentages and look into this media queries feature. As for the mobile adjustments, feel free. I haven't designed with mobile in mind at all currently, so there's probably quite a lot of work to do on that end. No rush though, this can always wait a week or two for full implementation. — Nexolate (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it a lot :)
There a a few things I would change :

The background image is too dark for my taste. Would not it be better with an image like this ? http://survarium.com/sites/all/themes/survarium/im/back-1920.jpg
Is there a way to have a mouse over effect on the section icons like on the Warframe wiki ?
Some icons may be improved I guess and i'll try to make some other versions and we'll choose.
Maybe a banner on top with the Survarium logo would look better that the "Welcome to Survarium Wiki"
Is there a way to implement the Survarium font for titles ? : See this forum topic : https://forum.survarium.com/en/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=374
To me the Ammunition section is not of such importance that it deserves a full section. I would rather merge it with the weapon section.
I would rename the Equipment section to Armors and and the items to Equipment (featuring both consumables and side equipments such as backpacks)
The Damage section should be wider in topic featuring more game mechanics such as armor, isolation, weight/speed mechanics, etc...

--Pogs (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's only for the inside content. The side and top bars will remain the same.
Probably. There's no obvious "highlighted" states we can use for most of the content though.
Same as above, top banner will remain the same, in addition to the welcome message.
Don't know. I'd imagine that including fonts for websites is not good web practice though, due to compatibility reasons. Eyes?
There's quite a lot of information for Ammunition, even in its current state. Enough that its dedicated page doesn't feel empty in any case.
The names are deliberately made to match those in game, so as to be more intuitive and less confusing to users.
Again, Damage is a rather broad subject with regards to Survarium and probably warrants its own page. There's nothing stopping you from making a brief section and including a Main Article link on another page though.

— Nexolate (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is an alternative version with other icons. --Pogs (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, wow. Okay. I'm definitely not a big fan of that style. The glow is very intense, the symbol seems like an overuse of the logo and there's a fair amount of empty space between the actual images; space which stretches out the minimum width of the table unnecessarily. I think simple and clean is the best way to go for this.

As for the imagery, Skills is more appropriate than my effort but less representative of the range of skills. Weapons is surprisingly good; I didn't think that image would work well at that size, I will have to edit a new version of it later. Items is also good, had no idea that image existed. Some of the others are fairly ambiguous (Equipment, Ammunition) and/or not very representative of the subject (Upgrades, Damage) though.

— Nexolate (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not streches the width of the table as I used the exact same width. New version taking into account your comments : http://i.imgur.com/bACrzNq.png

Individual icons are on my imggur account in 2 versions high and low def : http://imgur.com/a/5lb7f --Pogs (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, still not liking it personally. Still feels like an overuse of the logo, still a lot of empty space. As for the images, some of the new ones aren't much better than before. For example, Equipment - all I can make out is a gas mask. Upgrades is better, but I don't think using a fictional menu layout is a good representation of the actual system. You have reminded me that I need to redesign the Damage icon though, since that image is a bit too abstract in its current state, and Upgrades for the same reason.

— Nexolate (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Ammunition page, I still feel it is not worth a full front page section. If as you say it depends on amount of info, then game mechanics fully deserves a front page section as it has a lot of content. To me a Ammo section within the weapon page is more logical as both subjects are related.

Regarding icons, I think mines have a lot more personality than just simple square icons. I don't feel there is an overuse here but I see an overuse of squares within the font page and my icons were an attempt to break this ;) Your icons are also difficult to read, specially equipment too. To me, an icon does not need to be an actual representation, just a suggestion. None of them are actual game screenshots anyway. Better something that is readable and understandable rather than an actual screenshot that means nothing or little. But I agree they need to be more readable so I made some adjustments : http://i.imgur.com/tbSO2gC.png

I propose that we both improve our proposals and let the community decide what they like the most. We can make a poll on the forums. What do you think ? --Pogs (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about 2 separate subjects. The one which I addressed, which was whether it needs its own PAGE, is absolutely deemed by how much content it has. If you'll recall, this was why I moved the content you wrote about Upgrades into its own page. The subject which you're commenting on now is whether it deserves a front page LINK though, more so than "Mechanics" specifically. In that case, yes, it's a measure of both its content and its popularity to users. I could get into the specifics of why its more worthy than "Mechanics", but I've already spent a good page discussing as such above. The result, you may recall, is that "tutorial-like" content does warrant a front page link, but mostly as a smaller element, which is already covered in the new design as both a survival guide link and an FAQ link.

I could comment on the reasoning behind squares over circles or other more exotic shapes, but I can see that's not the point of the remark. I was rather amused by the bit about the Equipment icon however, considering how recognisable the Amber respirator and container backpack are, in addition to the fact that that's an official piece of Survarium equipment art just cropped to be square. In addition, I didn't say that it had to be an actual representation, especially a screenshot, just that it had to be related and representative of the subject. A random piece of artwork that just happens to have blood on it, for example, is not very representative of "Damage".

Finally, you can try and get the forum's opinion on this, but forum users don't care too much about how the wiki looks. I'm lucky to get 1 or 2 responses when I ask. Not to mention the fact that you can't make polls on the forums anyway, only admins can. As always, I'll look more into the icons when I next get time to edit. Ammunition in particular looks good, and I'll be redesigning that icon accordingly. You had the same idea as me for Damage, which I remade just the other day. — Nexolate (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I give up. Give me your email address and I'll send you my psd. You'll be able to get things from it and make the best square icons of our 2 sets.--Pogs (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the base I've been using for Ammunition, if you want to put your renders on top of that then I think it'd look pretty good. I wanted to avoid having too many similar backgrounds. http://i.imgur.com/Jd2HUFY.jpg

As for the rest, I think I've got it covered. I was able to find your sources for most of the other images. Skills I'll be designing something that more closely matches yours but with other skill tree icons as well. Weapons, I got. Equipment... I just think the Amber respirator is more iconic and unique, don't you? Items, I found. Upgrades I'm still puzzling over, as mine's a bit too blurry but yours looks too much like a design for another menu. Game Mode, I got. Locations, same thing as equipment, I think Vostok's Radar is just instantly recognisable, more so than Chemical Plant. Artifacts, I think the Larkspur by itself is a clearer image. Ammo, I mentioned. Store is the same. Factions, I think I've got more variety. Missions and Damage are the same, sans background. Customization is the same.

One thing which would help immensely is if you could find a good picture of an anomaly. My one's too blurry and yours is concept art of an anomaly no longer in the game. We really need something which players will instantly recognise. — Nexolate (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my updated zipped psd : http://dl.free.fr/nyUgLG8kb. Square, with new better icons, etc... Take a look at it and use it if you want. Here is the table I made from the icons it mostly works but some page do not exist yet : sandbox --Pogs (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of these new ones are really good. I particularly like Artifacts and Factions, whose renders I didn't even consider using initially, though the pictures could do with being slightly bigger to fill the space better.

That's a good screenshot you found for Anomalies, but it's very, very blue. I might still attempt to get another one for that, if you don't mind. For Equipment, I see what you did but I just prefer the official art. There's nothing wrong with your edit, it's just preference. Also, same thing for Locations. You've used concept art again when I think one of the official screenshots would look nicer overall. — Nexolate (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a Spring artifact to fill the space, enlarged the faction icons, toned down saturation and added a bit of purple to artifact icon, swapped to a radar screenshot. I still find the concept art better as it's more colorful and the view is better. Same for equipment I find my montage better : gloves, mask and boots make more sense to me. The backpack is more related to items to me. --Pogs (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to add another artifact, I thought it was fine with the 3, just that they should be bigger to fill the space around the edges. Similar thing with Factions; scale is good, just need to spread them out a tiny bit more for spacing's sake.

There may be a better view with a Radar screenshot, it's all about finding the best one. Perhaps the one I used needs to be cropped less, will have to check. As for the backpack point, that's a misconception on your part since the container backpack is a piece of Equipment. A pretty important one at lower levels too. — Nexolate (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: fonts: There's no harm in embedding one or two fonts, depending on how many versions of each font need to be embedded. (such as regular, bold, etc.). The more relevant issue is if it is a font we can embed without a paid license. If you know the name of the font, I can look into it. It can also be listed as the preferred option for those who already have it installed, though few would likely see it that way. — oOeyes

06:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the newest icons I made a lot better : they are neater and mostly come from the games so they reflect the game better. --Pogs (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's two major problems with that. (A) The word "mostly" and (B) that they're very simplistic and not very colourful. Not to mention that several of them are quite rough in places, with noticeable blemishes from tracing. — Nexolate (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

well I made additional icons in the style of the game on's that blend perfectly. Simplistic is the definition of icon. Not colorful exactly as they reflect those of the game. They depict a lot more the game than the colorful complicated ones we made. If the Devs made simplistic white icons there is a reason. It's easier to identify and look better than complicated ones. The icons you chose are also blemish and rough in some places and most of all they lack unity and consistency. Some are icons for the game, some are screenshot etc...? The framing is different from one another,etc... they lack unity and do not blend well as a whole. That is why I tried to take icons from the game and extend them as the simplistic white icons work best together. I agree I have to work more on some icons to find the perfect balance but to me this is clearly the way to go. Individually the icons we made are ok but put together we see they don't fit perfectly. The News, Contributing and Changes icons I made finish the suite perfectly and are more relevant than the ones you made : flames for changes ? the back of a character for contributing ? Radar for news ? I don't see the point. Well I make icons for game mods, and for a leaving for maybe ten years so I know what i'm talking about. --Pogs (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering all of the icons we made were using materials either made by the developers or taken from the game itself, I'd say they're equally relevant and consistent. As for the reasoning for "simplistic white icons" in the game, possibly theirs are intended to be used for smaller game UI, not for larger website portals? Just a thought. Perhaps if we had a front page design like survarium.wiki then they might be more appropriate, but we don't.

As for the wiki content section icons, sure, they're alright. I could go and take some other wiki's nice icons and they'd be equally alright. They wouldn't be as representative of the game though, which is the point. The "flames" are a campfire, signifying the community nature of the wiki. The back of a character has a medical symbol, for the individual helping the site (and yes, that is an official, unedited asset). The radar dish, does that even need explanation? — Nexolate (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

they are not equally consistent : most of the icons are taken from the game thus the reader identify them instantly. Take the skill icon for example, it uses the character head from the game where you can allocate skills and I added the circle + dots to amplify it. Upgrades is clear also with the upper arrow that universally represents upgrades. Anomalies is represented by the biohazard icon which is also universal. Game mode shows a battery that you identify easily , The store is a caddy and uses the forums icon. etc...

The icons being all white and without border, they are lighter than the overall stack of squares on the current front page. They blend better with each other as there is a unity of color and visual mass. That is why icons come into suites, because they have to make a visual collection that match together. Mixing in game screenshots, menus and materials from the wiki prevent us from reaching a visual unity that need to be achieved when icons are to be displayed next to each other. Smaller Game UI ? Did you see the lobby ? Are the top row icons small ? No, yet they are made white too to match the other small icons in the sub menus.

the prob is that we only see flames and not a campfire because it's too small and narrow. Same for the medical guy, I don't even see the red cross. And a radar is meant to receive data not to send data so it's not relevant to send news information. --Pogs (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I could make the same argument. Most of the imagery is taken from the game, and is instantly recognisable. What's more recognisable for Skills than some of the skill icons? Not much. What's more recognisable for Anomalies than a picture of an anomaly? Not much. As for the comment about the in-game icons, the emphasis was on the "game UI" bit, not the size.

I'll cut to the chase - there's not much you can say to convince me of this new style. There were several elements of your last batch that I found genuinely great and ended up incorporating into the final design, while your new icons just don't appeal to me at all in the context of portal thumbnails. Find someone else to convince, because this is a lost cause. — Nexolate (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You just answer the only argument you can match my set with. All other ones where you fail you don't mention them (mass and color consistency, lighter design, full suite). It's a clear sign that you can't argue on them and know I am right. But you are too stubborn to admit it ;) You just win cause you're the admin and have more power. Proof that most of the time, power is badly used :p--Pogs (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And I knew that "argument" was coming from a mile away because you're obviously upset that your efforts aren't being met with all-around praise and it's the only excuse you can think of for why it would happen. It's a clear sign that you can't deal with criticism and always assume that you're right, simply because it's your experienced perspective and it couldn't possibly not be the best option.

I could've argued all your points, but it was clear from the outset that it would just make you more upset. For example, I could greyscale, or otherwise hue, all the existing icons so they're more "consistent" by your definition, would that make them better? In any case, I'm done with this argument since you don't seem to have anything more to add. And please don't even think about vandalising any of the content out of spite. — Nexolate (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not done with the argument because I have nothing to add but because YOU have nothing to oppose to mine. You could not argue all my points else you would have. I can deal with criticism because all the points you were right about (blemish) I worked on them to improve my icon set. I am ready to work as a team and get better things when you come up with rightful arguments (such as the blemish thing) but I can't stand fallacious ones : simplistic icon ? lack of color... They are lame arguments that only shows your lack of fairness. You are out of arguments and invent false ones. It shows your ignorance about how icons work (and devs prove me right doing more symbolic icon set). Thus your ignorance of the matter prove your not competent to deal with them. On your side I started working on the new front page and proposed things that you immediately dismissed without trying to work as a team and making all your things alone redoing what I already done. You did not accept to work WITH me sharing files and accepting mines to work together in real harmony. Instead you redid all what I did in your corner. That way of working is not good. Greyscale and Hue the existing icons set would not work well, I agree cause they would lack only distinguishable elements : color and would make identification of them even harder. That is why abstract icons work better : the color is meaningless only the shape matters : we would recolor my set in any color, they would still work. Image base would not work well. You could give it a try at least to see. That would even be better that the actual overthrowing mix of colors. My arguments about the color and consistency are rightful yet you don't event try to improve your set to correct this. If you find a way to make them better, then we can use your image base set. My point was, as I already explain, to correct these points with another approach. If you're proficient enough to improve your set then ok we can go your set. I don't mind as long as these points are corrected.

I don't like your attitude : you really think I am dumb enough to vandalize the wiki out of spite ? I am sad for you on this. First you seem to thing i'm not smart enough to know it's useless because as an admin you can revert everything back to normal, and moreover you think I am a bad person, which I am not. It's the contrary. I respect people and their work. But you choose to insult me saying this, so I'm done with you too. Stay with your fallacious attitude, and other people content removal (Yes i did a front page design first and you removed it to put yours), lack of teamwork (won't work with me, sharing files, working alone redoing what i did). This is not Your Wiki and being admin does not mean you are right on everything. Did i try to rework your front page layout ? No cause I acknowledge your are more proficient than me on this. But regarding graphic design I think I am better so Why not give the graphical part to me and work on layouts. That would be are real professional way of working together and be more relevant. It does not mean I would not take your advise on the matter (as i did) and you would not take mine on layouts. being 2 working on the same thing is a bad idea. it's not professional and overlaps. Well while I think about it, it would look better if the two frames were top aligned (Teamplay,etc... one and the social links one, and maybe put the download link somewhere else). --Pogs (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? "Sorry Pogs, but I just didn't like either of your overall designs. Hey, some of the imagery you used is pretty good though, we should definitely use that"? Because that's pretty much exactly what I said both times, plus some feedback on why exactly I didn't like them. There's nothing majorly wrong with either, just that I didn't like them for front page portal icons for the reasons stated (overly simplistic, lots of unused space, etc).

Considering that you and me are the only two people on the wiki that are actually interested in the front page icons, guess what, you effectively have only 50% of your user base that likes them. Meanwhile, you didn't provide any criticism at all for the set I originally presented, so I opted to go with those plus some of your suggestions and your edits because, shockingly, I thought they were good additions. If that's not a reasonable example of cooperation, I don't know what is. Not to mention that I always imagined they would be updated later if a better design or imagery is found.

Oh, by the way, being an admin has exactly zero involvement with this discussion. Anyone can undo or otherwise replace your edits if they don't agree with them, all admin rights allow me to do is ban someone if they're a negative influence. — Nexolate (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If I do as you do (replacing other contributors content by mine as you did by my front page design, you would do revert it back to your design etc... that would be a stupid battle. But I'm more reasonable than you are and give up fighting for the wiki's sake. You won because I'm smarter and a good person. If I were stupid I would adopt your behavior and change your design to mine... So we'll stick to this cause I want peace. --Pogs (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So we're going to operate by a first-come, first-serve rule then? You put it up first, so it's considered wrong to update or change it? Sorry, but you knew that there was a major redesign in the works and you committed anyway, without knowing what the design would be like and without any feedback again. When the new design was revealed, you then made a new icon set instead of updating the old ones. So it's okay for you to replace your old work, but if someone else does it then it's wrong? There's that mentality showing again.

No, I've had enough. You can keep that opinion if you want. No one else who's edited on the wiki has that problem with me so I don't mind. I certainly won't try to stop you if you decide to leave this time. — Nexolate (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway I don't want to fight with you, I respect you for what you do for the wiki and don't want to upset you. So let's make peace and work in harmony now.

Ok let's keep the image base icons but can you please consider to keep working on them to make them better ? I think that we could improve them by trying to unify their backgrounds when possible to give the set more consistency. A similar background for Skills, Artifacts, Ammo, Faction, Damage and Store. Can you please try this and see if it's better ?

I have an idea for the Weapons page. I remade the weapon icons from the game and included them into the overview. Right now they are useless but maybe we could make something out of them : anchor, link, .. ? Do you have an idea ? I too would like a additional stat for weapons : the reloading time. I know we don't have that info yet but maybe the Devs could provide it to us. Or as a last resort, we could gather it in game or maybe ask the help of the community ?

Also maybe we could add links to the proper ammo in the tables : for example if you click on 9x18 MP in the weapon table you go to the corresponding section in the Ammo page. The faction and Rank icons I made in the header of the weapon tables show a bad label on a mouse over. Can you fix that please ? Also in the Ammunition page, we could add, as for the weapon page, the faction and rank needed to buy them.

I would like to add icons to the Infobox Weapon template but I could not find where the template pages are :( Can you please help me ?