Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature): Difference between revisions

Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature) (edit)

Revision as of 20:39, 3 October 2023

2,982 bytes added , 3 October 2023

Apparently way way more complicated than it seems to me

Llamageddon

Maintainers

4,977

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::: I would lean towards acting first without necessarily waiting for a read receipt. It seems like an uncontroversial decision now that we have evidence that the transparent version is used by the game itself. -[[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (CEST)
 ::: Edit: I've done the change. Hopefully this is a satisfactory conclusion for all.
+: I am not really going to be able to address everything, sufficiently, for now. I just came on to quickly correct a simple error, and something very simple has really snowballed into a nightmare. Even though these comments are in good faith, I might just give up in general at this point, with no ill will. I will ''try'' and briefly cover some key points.
+:* Firstly, literally all easily accessible guidance on this contradicts all the replies above;* It appears that this might be an issue with terminology that has specific vernacular and technical meaning that isn't as universally understood or consistent as I thought.
+:* Secondly, particularly in the case of conditions/passives, many of these do not have tooltips. So in this case are we saying we should specifically ''not'' include the one image that the game actually is uses, and will be seen by the player?
+:* <nowiki>*</nowiki>The images mentioned in replies here are not icons as I or Larian understand the term; this is verifiable by usage, naming and comments in the game files. We are talking at crossed purposes from the very start.
+: Variations on "It has been done, so it must be done" seem a recurring theme, and this makes me nervous with any project. There is more than one example quite recently of why this is not irrational. I don't share the sentiment, but I hope those who made comments about how much more important they and their time on the wiki was can at least appreciate that there might be more relevant professions to something as broad in scope as a wiki. This seems like such a non-issue, with obvious zero stress win-win solutions, I'm really questioning what is wrong with the most fundamental decision-making process that there was any issue in the first place. Anecdotal and undocumented decision-making seems to be so casually championed at this point, there seems to be an implicit invalidation of any other sources or opinions. Probably not helped by more than one senior editor comment across the broader wiki, and elsewhere, openly advertising the boy's club angle to this, though.
+: Sorry for being so blunt, and the unplanned, but I think relevant tangent. It wasn't my original intention here. Nearly all the issues that have arisen in this instance were clearly voiced as a potential issue more than once, both on the wiki and elsewhere. I very clearly mentioned the fundamental issue leading to all the others here at the very start, and one person got so upset I felt I had to drop it, so I am particularly annoyed all this has arisen completely coincidentally, from an unrelated edit and following seemingly unambiguous guidelines and examples. It's a problem that has had to be actively avoided recently elsewhere too. I do appreciate other's actually acknowledging a comment for a change and won't ignore anyone, though I really am exhausted, so might not be quick to reply. [[User:Llamageddon|Llamageddon]] ([[User talk:Llamageddon|talk]]) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (CEST)