Testing a new class page layout in Thief I.[edit source]
For single-stat nodes, I don't think the number of nodes in a given class path is necessary. Firstly, the number of nodes in a given class path is already viewable in-game, and serves only as a rough outline of how that class will affect a character's stats. Secondly, a player will need to take all the nodes in a given path to complete that class before they can make any other class, and aside from dual-stat nodes there is no choice within a given class path, so the amount of stat gained per-node is less important than the total stats gained from that class overall. Additionally, the stat gain per node is different across each character-- D's Slayer is notable for only giving 3 MP, while most other MP nodes give 4. Thus, I have listed only total stat gains in the first table.
For dual-stat nodes, I've listed each individual node in the path. Since each path has five such nodes, and each node is a relatively significant choice-- the only real choice available within any one class path-- it's important that each be listed on its own. Listing each possible pair for all characters makes the table unnecessarily long, too. Thus, each choice node is listed in order in the second table; each pair shows each stat and each stat gain.
Feel free to note any concerns you have or changes you make, but please-- if you do have concerns or make changes, actually tell people what they are.
This is the best format so far. Let's convert the rest of the Thief class to it and see what it looks like.
I have put the formate into the Template:Class
Your format of listing total stats given is a very good idea, it provides way more information than just the number of nodes and I like it a lot!
My only complaint is could we have the character names listed horizontally (on the x-axis I suppose) and the Stats listed vertically (on the y-axis) like on a lot of the other pages? There are more stats than there are characters, and it's standard for the larger category to be listed vertically as it makes it easier to compare and contrast data this way.
The two things I'm aiming for here are readability/visual clarity and significance of information. I'm concerned that a vertical layout may disrupt the readability of the information-- as in the example I've put forth, the three significant sets of data that I am aware of are isolated from one another, so a reader might be able to easily pick one out for their own whatever-they're-doing. Feel free to try a single-table layout, but ask yourself (or others!) if the format helps convey the information to a reader better, and if it doesn't, consider how to change that.
In any case, "most of the other pages" are only arranged that way because that was how they were arranged to begin with. (I'd know, I did most of them.) The state things are in is not always the state they ought to be in.
Recent Misleading Edits[edit source]
We have to be very careful, when we assume the mantle of authority, to state things that are true. I have made two edits to this page to fix two serious misstatements:
1. That the CLASS of Trickster, in its entirety, can be substituted for with Throw Bomb.
It's true that you can duplicate a lot of the debuffs. This is an especially attractive path if you are crafting Item Plus. However, that takes gold or items that could be instead be turned into stats, and it is a resource tradeoff that is a personal decision, not an automatic "this makes Trickster obsolete." In addition, from a CharOp perspective, Trickster's appeal is that it is a magical (that is, MAG and MP boosting) class that still gives good SPD. Debuffs are somewhat secondary to this use of the class. Stating that you can replace the class simply because you can get debuffs from bombs shows a misunderstanding of the most appealing part of that class.
Calling it "comprehensive" replacement when it doesn't do all the debuffs a trickster could is also very misleading, though in fairness the user DID come back and edit the statement to note that it wasn't comprehensive after all.
2. That the summary of a class's benefits is somehow best thought of on terms of what SKILLS you get from the class.
From an optimization point of view, this is grievously wrong - characters get very different stats from the same classes and the different stats can matter enormously. The only case in which the differences don't really matter are when one is planning on 2000+ hrs of endgame stat item farming, but that is certainly not something that is true of every player.