Forum:Multiplayer character pages

Sandbox pages:
 * Infobox: User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/CharacterMP
 * Melee/movement table: User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/MeleeMP
 * Navigation footer: User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/ME3MPCharactersFooter
 * Model character pages:
 * User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/Human Soldier – the tabberized images
 * User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/Batarian Brawler Vanguard
 * User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/Volus Mercenary Sentinel

Discussions
Here is the first draft of our MP project that we open to the discussion in order to get some community input before an eventual vote. The idea is to change the current MP page which are not easy to read (to say the less). We intent to create a single page for each character with the following layout : User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/Volus_Mercenary_Sentinel. Each page will be organized in several parts :
 * A new infobox with important info on the character
 * The official description
 * The current template to give the characteristics (health/shields & abilities/powers)
 * An explanation of the melee and movement abilities
 * Players notes
 * General
 * Cerberus
 * Reapers
 * Geth
 * Collectors
 * A nav box containing every character for an easy navigation

What is your opinion/input on this project (content, layout, organisation,...)?

Some points are also open to discussion:
 * Should we create new categories ? (such as Infiltrator MP, Multiplayer Character)
 * Should we also clean the players notes when we implement this project?

Feel free to post any remarks, we (Elseweyr and I) will answer to any of your concerns. As my English is not that good, Else will explain in details the main reasons of this project before the launch of the vote (at least I hope she will, or I will with a bad language;) ). --DeldiRe (talk) 17:18, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

With this notes of MP characters would be indeed easier to find.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 07:20, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * despite my earlier misgivings written and unwritten i think i can allow the project to proceed. it's long past time for the navboxes and separate character pages anyway.
 * as to the original class pages, say, they are to be turned into disambiguations. it should go without saying that numerous pages link back to them: if this project passes, due diligence in link corrections should be exercised. to make an example again, see here for a potential list of pages needing adjustments.


 * cleaning player notes is entirely up to editor discretion. maximal accuracy, proper sourcing, and zero engrish are of course the guiding principles when doing so.


 * each class has 9-11 items. probably enough to populate a couple of new categories. a page can typically have this sort of categories, judging by the volus sentinel example:

the class category can be retroactively applied to the SP equivalent. the autocategorization code can be modified from existing templates to suit purposes here. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:41, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * The point about linked pages (for adjustments) was in my mind but I forget to mention it. It will be a huge amount of work, but some newcomers have showed their envy to help. Thanks for the list btw ;) --DeldiRe (talk) 15:17, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

I have long thought this should happen. I see no reason for it not to proceed. Also, some classes would need disambig messages (like the Asari justicar). Some would have trivia noting names (e.g., noting the mythology behind "Valkyrie" or voice actors if we can find it). TheUnknown285 (talk) 11:15, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point about trivia, it could be interesting. Disambig message are also present (and will need an update) on other pages (like Asari Justicar disambig who currently lead to the current MP page. --DeldiRe (talk) 15:15, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, all feedback seems to have been positive and constructive so far. I just added links to the volus sentinel adept Volus Mercenary Sentinel sandbox page as well as the infobox template and navigation footer pages under so they are easily found.

For convenience, I'll list the changes we've made so far compared to the current versions:
 * the infobox
 * all melee, movement, and extraordinary mechanics are detailed separately from player notes
 * faction-specific notes are proper subsections that can be edited individually (practically impossible on current pages because of the number of sections)
 * more categorisation opportunities
 * navigation footer

I would personally like to hear some feedback on the following points before we proceed:
 * 1) Do you like the colour scheme of the infobox? Any other thoughts about its design?
 * 2) Is there any additional information you think could be included in the infobox?
 * 3) *Also, feel free to play around with the different rarity colours (simply change the rarity value for the volus and preview).
 * 4) How do you feel about the "Melee and movement" and "Notable mechanics" sections?
 * 5) *This would be where stuff like the volus' inability to take cover and the Geth Juggernaut's insta-kill immunity would be noted.
 * 6) Thoughts on the navigation footer? Collapsible or not?
 * 7) Any other ideas for the character pages that we haven't even thought of yet?

Regarding categories, I'm in favor of both the proposed ones, ie. the class categories (eg. Category:Sentinels ) and Category:Multiplayer Characters. (Disambiguation pages for things like "Asari Justicar" is another matter, though I personally don't see the need in cases where only 2-3 pages are involved and which are already covered by For–see tags.) Elseweyr  [ talk | stalk ] February 26, 2014, 20:38:32 (UTC)

I think category of hybrid classes like sentinels isn't necessary. We already have biotics, tech and combat, I think that's enough.

I think infobox with Volus has too much "empty" space in image cell. It would look better, if it was coloured to make contrast to background of the wikia.

Voice actor of character could included in infobox, but maybe that's a useless information.

"Melee and movement" and "Notable mechanics" sections look OK to me.

My idea is to add quotes like "Losing presure!" to volus character. Quarians cry "For Rannoch!" and krogans "For Tuchanka!".

FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 21:13, February 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * The empty space in the volus infobox is due to the character images' constant aspect ratio, which means the rotund volus barely fills up half of its image. See also my Human Soldier page.


 * The interjections could be fun to include, but unfortunately there are no in-game transcripts of those, and these pages are more gameplay-oriented anyway.


 * What I added to the Human Soldier was the Light Melee bullet, which could be useful to include for all characters regardless of "degree of notability." Light melee attacks do vary quite a bit, their sequences especially so, both of which I think would be nice to have documented. Elseweyr  [ talk | stalk ] February 28, 2014, 13:24:47 (UTC)


 * Empty space in box: See Else's answer (it will only appear for the 4 volus)
 * Biotic/Tech categories: these are not classes but a "talent". Class categories are then still useful.
 * Voice Actor: Why not, if we can find some sources for that (Mark Meer as vorchas? but we need more than that)
 * Interjections: I like the idea but as Else said, we need to find an official transcription for those.
 * Light melee Combo: indeed we have to document each sequence.
 * --DeldiRe (talk) 13:58, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

so let me critique "politely" on deldire's latest ideas.

removal of melee and dodge from power tables not allowed. they were put there for numerous reasons. one of which is the utilization of the fist and dodge icons. plus they're about as redundant as an infobox stating "volus mercenary sentinel" then having race and class fields right below it.

next, elseweyr's concerns.

no problems with colorscheme so far. navfooter could do with collapsible, we certainly did with lengthy entries like ME3EnemiesBox. player notes themselves, no comment given my history with MP. do as you like, the only stipulation is data preservation. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:49, March 8, 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to know for the note, with my "experience" in MP I think I can do something good to enhance the quality and the "readability" of the players notes if Elsie can help me with some language stuffs ;). We will work into it when the "layout" part is validated.
 * Navfooter: Collapsible or not, hard to tell what is the best option. If we can shorten the player note, I think it can stay the way it is. If not, collapsible is maybe recommended. But i'd like to know better the reasons for collapsible (or not) for others nav boxes.
 * melee/dodge: I'm still in favor of the removal of the melee and dodge from power table. Not because they are redundant but because they are inaccurate with the reality of the game and really unclear, especially if we explain (in details) the melee/dodge abilities right after. I agree with you that the icons are great but we could place them in Else's template instead (it could be a good separation between melee stuff and movement stuff). I'd like to have more community input on this point (from MP player). At this point, the current layout is too unclear and uneasy to understand for a casual reader (and even more for a veteran player). --DeldiRe (talk) 09:06, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for long post, but bear with me.

Cleaning up player notes is free for anyone to do at any time and has little bearing on this project. That the pages will be better organised and easier to access will hopefully facilitate this process, however. The reason for making certain footers collapsible is because they're lengthy i.e. long, which this one is, so I'll leave it like that for now.

More importantly, after some R&D I do agree with the melee/dodge issue raised by DeldiRe. Unfortunately BioWare wasn't consistent in naming these abilities, but instead for many characters merely listed general characteristics under the in-universe descriptions on the character selection screen, such as Decreased Mobility, Toughness/Melee or Weapon Expert. All drell, for example, share the attributes Increased Mobility, Acrobatics and Martial Arts, but other characters have their own distinct versions of them. Reave is Reave no matter the character, but now that we have the full set of characters and their data, we know that eg. Martial Arts does not define a specific set of abilities, but rather describes the character's general combat style.

Another example of a probably-not-quite-accurate interpretation of this data is the N7 Destroyer's T5-V Battlesuit, which indeed is its class power, but hardly its melee attack. The wiki also independently and without proper explanation lists the Geth Juggernaut's melee attack as Shield Pulse, which is the regular geth's heavy melee and not the same thing as either of the juggy's melee attacks. Unnecessarily confusing. Minor, if established, wiki-technicalities that worked fine at first but turned out to be less than ideal in retrospect shouldn't be non-permitted to change later.

A solution I think would be very neat is indeed reserving PowerTable for powers and health/shield/barrier values while putting some actually useful data in the new infobox. Regular humans, asari, quarians and salarians tend to have only the two melee/dodge entries listed as their general abilities, but almost all other races and characters have additional notes that haven't been used anywhere on the wiki yet. The infobox would be just the place for them. Where there are clearly named melee attacks and dodge maneuvers among them, we can mention them in the melee/movement table, as well; otherwise we should just describe them in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion. The new batarian page currently displays this layout, though I also adjusted the others' infoboxes.

Also regarding the infobox, I agree including the race and class may seem redundant, though perhaps less so if the class links to its corresponding category (eg.  Category:Adepts ) and race to its corresponding race page? These values must be passed to the auto-categorisation function somehow, anyway; might as well display them. Nevertheless, I removed 'Gender' because the character title always specifies it where it has any significance.

a matter that hasn't come up yet but will have to be considered sooner or later: what is to be done to the old multiplayer class pages once we have the individual character pages? Should we retain the Mass_Effect_3/Multiplayer/Character_Customization subpages and rework them into hubpages, or would they be obsolete with the new class categories, which will yield new category pages? If we go for hubpages, any links to multiplayer class pages (just the class page, not specific characters) could stay as they are, but we'd probably have to settle on some layout for them. Ideas? (: Elseweyr talk &bull; stalk March 14, 2014, 00:53:28 (UTC)


 * i said what's to be done to the old pages and pointed out the possibility of integrating the usual autocategorization routines in my very first comment above.


 * as to the template changes, excellent. simply chopping off design elements without considering other avenues (like if they can be reused) isn't particularly smart nor thought through. that is a terrible attitude to bring on dealing with widespread changes. current changes are ideas worth pursuing.


 * now, since powertable calls up stuff from PowerDetails and invoking melee/dodge abilities in the former brings up the fist and dodge icons from the latter, i now pose the question of whether to deprecate/erase the relevant lines or not. this is to ensure non-usage in those templates (at this point, you either leave out the melee/dodge lines from the powertable altogether or you abandon the current idea).


 * it's predicated on the idea that what the wiki terms for melee/dodge abilities are inaccurate to a degree. i believe we also made certain caveats in describing other powers elsewhere on the site, grouping enemy variants in with player powers or suchlike. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:38, March 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the templates have been posted since a long time now, we should think to start the voting period in a near future. But there is still a problem pointed by Temp ("terrible attitude") but I can't fix it because I don't really get the point. Could you enlighten me? :)--DeldiRe (talk) 22:28, March 19, 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I really appreciate the changes that were done in the new templates which is way more clear for the wiki users:
 * Title: Abilities -> Powers : It's much more appropriate
 * The abilities section in the infobox: good idea to put those info in this place because they are the "official" ones.
 * Auto categorizing: I'm in favor of auto categorization and will make the infobox more relevant
 * The melee/dodge title/table : is way more clear with those line and icons
 * Icons in power tables: As I said, they are obsolete with the apparition of the news MP characters. We have to delete them as it is in the current example (should we remove it from the powerdetails template, yeah we could but it's not necessary).
 * Regarding the gender, I would let this information in the infobox, at least for classical human char especially because we display the image of one of the two possibilities. It's maybe not the most relevant info in the whole wiki but it's still useful, especially in the future when ME3 MP will be forgotten. (And I'm still in favor of introducing both picture for classic human char if we can find an easy way to do it)
 * Old pages should be removed except for the Mass_Effect_3/Multiplayer/Character_Customization which should become a hub (maybe with a nicer layout).--DeldiRe (talk) 13:01, March 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, my bad. So, literally disambiguation pages? Hubpages with the existing introductions and some kind of character image galleries could have been nice, but it was just an idea.


 * I'm not sure I understand how this should been done differently, though. I did look at PowerTable/Details and concluded we don't want to use all of that data, but also add new information, separate it from the powers, and present it differently. Creating a new table seemed like the only feasible option, at least to a web design scrub. I still think it's a good idea to have the melee/movement icons, names and notes all in one place since they are worth mentioning and unlike powers vary depending on the character they are associated with. Should this pass, however, I suppose there'd be no use keeping trash in PowerTable/Details.


 * Would the acceptable changes be those made to the infobox, then? I'm starting to be at the limit of my abilities and feel there's not much more I can do, at least not without more specific feedback. We could also organise the vote so that one option is the current format with possibly only the infobox added, the other option being the end result of this project. Elseweyr talk &bull; stalk March 14, 2014, 16:21:27 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't vote for a proposition with only the infobox because I don't want to leave false/incorrect/incoherent information on this wiki, especially when we proposed a viable (and fashionable) solution. --DeldiRe (talk) 16:50, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking a simple question due to the point the firstdrell raised (the voicing of the MP char) and I just get a confirmation (https://twitter.com/deldire1/status/443333467754233856) does it worth a new line on the infobox or a simple trivia?--DeldiRe (talk) 22:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)


 * This is already noted in Vorcha and even if we could get confirmation of all the others, voice actor info is not very relevant for multiplayer characters. Neither is gender, which I think would only clutter the infobox for most characters and is therefore simply not a good infobox item.


 * Unless the feedback suddenly starts pouring in, there doesn't seem to be many significant adjustments left to be made. I assume the Batarian Brawler version at this point represents the final layout proposal, so anyone who reads this: please feel free to take a look if you haven't already and suggest any changes that come to mind. Otherwise we'll probably be ready to open voting within a few days. Elseweyr talk &bull; stalk March 26, 2014, 00:53:24 (UTC)


 * Good work on the layout Elsie. I don't see much improvements to do. two remarks regarding what you said:
 * Voice actor: It's quite impossible to have confirmation for MP char except for Vorchas so it's not very relevant. However, for the vorcha, as we don't have any specific article for a know vorcha, it could be "useful" to add a simple trivia to please TheUnknown.
 * Gender: I still think that it is relevant due to the fact that standard human characters can be both male and female and because it won't "kill" the layout. I'd like to have more community input on this point (but I don't want to slow the voting process). --DeldiRe (talk) 13:06, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

If each one's getting it's own page, why not consider using tabview? Phalanx (talk|contribs) 15:35, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * because even if grouped on commonalities (adept, soldier etc) the characters are too distinct from each other. they're not variations of the same thing. plus a plethora of detrimental design considerations. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 15:50, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Right, another update by popular demand. Since the Common humans are unique in that there are two versions of the same character (male and female) and hence two images to display but only one infobox, one option is to tabberize the images. See User:Elseweyr/Sandbox/Human Soldier.

This would also display "Male" and "Female" headers in the infobox so that it's absolutely clear there are two versions of the Common humans that are identical gameplaywise. I personally find the tabber a bit ghastly for this purpose, but the feedback in Chat was positive, so I'm submitting it here for review. Elseweyr talk &bull; stalk March 26, 2014, 21:19:26 (UTC)


 * Look to be the easiest way to do it. Can you just remove the white lines around the picture? :) (I'd like to do it myself but ... hum... )--DeldiRe (talk) 01:13, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * looks very meh. tabber looks best as a standalone element, not as part of an infobox. at the very least we would have to skin tabber to conform to prevailing design standards, which i simply don't have the time to invest on at the moment. there's a slight color mismatch there.


 * do the images correspond to their ingame equivalents? i'm not overly fond of recycling pictures and unless i'm mistaken every common human already has their character render extracted. which means at first glance identical soldier/vanguard pages and the like. for the sake of idiotproofing the gender issues if people really need a clickable version for the male and female renders recycled multiple times on 6 pages i'm willing to let it slide.
 * if i am mistaken, then this means additional renders would have to be extracted from the files. which again i don't have the time to do so.


 * the concept is functionally sound but aesthetically shaky. and removing the borders just makes it look shittier. floating male/female buttons with no discernible purpose unless you click them. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:44, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * The images do indeed correspond to their ingame equivalents in that the three class pairs (Adept/Sentinel, Engineer/Infiltrator, Soldier/Vanguard) are each visually identical with each other. Do you mean the problem is eg. using a filename with "Vanguard" on the Soldier page, and that part of the images would have to be duplicated and given proper names?


 * I also took the time to reskin tabber a bit, and actually think it looks pretty good now: http://puu.sh/7LnvY.jpg. Elseweyr talk &bull; stalk March 27, 2014, 12:27:29 (UTC)