BG Wiki Update and Discussion Megathread

[Alhanalem]

Since there is a restriction on posting threads for new accounts, I'll put it here.

Neutral point of view on BG Wiki?

Information resources best serve a community if they carry a neutral point of view, not speaking for or against what they discuss but rather simply presenting the available data and letting the user decide for themselves what it means and if the material being discussed has merit or not.

This does seem to hold up here, most of the time. I take issue in particular, with the content page for Ballista. A few things before I proceed:

~ Yes, I know it's not popular content. But there are those who enjoy and partake in it from time to time.
~ Yes, I know it has a lot of issues, largely stemming from the addition of numerous progression mechanics to the game while Ballista itself hasn't been adjusted to take those into account well.

That does not mean that the content article should not be presented with a neutral point of view. There are lots of other contents in the game that are generally not popular:

~ Garrison
~ Moblin Maze Mongers
~ Most low level BCNMs
~ Belligerency
~ Countless sidequests with no/minimal rewards
~ Campaign (debatable, though I never see anyone doing it or asking about it)

And more- Typically because it's simply not current content anymore (and probably why BG Wiki doesn't even really have a page on Garrison, for example)

Now, I'm both ready and willing to help fill some of those gaps, as despite the hard work made here which I definitely recognize, there are areas where other information sources have done better and BG still needs some work.

However, none of the contents I described above, if the pages exist, contain an opening paragraph describing the content's popularity. And this is a good thing, because if someone's looking to try or complete everything in the game, they should not be discouraged from doing so by such statements.

However, my attempts to make the Ballista page more netural, while still recognizing the issues, have gotten reverted (Not wholesale, to be fair, I'm not accusing BG of suppression, but specifically the text change I put in to make the page more neutral). And the biggest reason I have an issue with this, is because it is inconsistent with the rest of the wiki. Other articles generally don't lead with "this content is popular" or "this content is not popular."

I would like to help make BGWIki better. But I need to know that I can do so without that effort being undermined needlessly. Nobody needs to be told in a guide about a content that said content isn't popular. That's easy enough to discover through chatting with other players, reading about the content and not finding it interesting, or observing people's participation or lack thereof.

Neutral point of view is fundamental to an encyclopedia of knowledge, whether it's about a game, world history, or pop tarts (Yes, there's a pop tarts wiki). It really should be here as well.

[Spicyryan]

All this because you like Ballista and are upset that people are being informed that it is irrelevant content.

More over, Ballista and it's successor '''[[Brenner]]''', while considered fun are generally just an event in which players enter to test certain spells or abilities for game mechanic research. [[Ballista]] and Brenner are long-forgotten and as a result unpopular content. Both events are extremely imbalanced due to their release over a decade ago with no updates. Which makes enjoying them as a serious side activity somewhat difficult. For example, [[Quick Draw]] will just KO players.

Which was changed to that from this after your whole display on the official forums:

More over, Ballista and it's successor '''[[Brenner]]''', while considered fun are generally just an event in which players enter to test certain spells or abilities for game mechanic research. [[Ballista]] and Brenner are long-forgotten and as a result unpopular content. Both events are thus very imbalanced since their release countless years ago.

I think the "just" [an event] is the largest microaggression there. Frankly, that could go.

But I need to know that I can do so without that effort being undermined needlessly. Nobody needs to be told in a guide about a content that said content isn't popular.

As opposed to not informing people and telling them to go find out by talking to others because its not on the wiki. I would rather someone who doesn't play anymore gets upset at the "lack of neutrality" than being upfront with people.

I wrote that blurb really quickly because we had no page for it, and I made one. The whole fact that you get hung up on rather insignificant shenanigans is typical though.

[Alhanalem]

All this because you like Ballista and are upset that people are being informed that it is irrelevant content.

I would object to this on any page, not just this one. This is not the only "irrelevant" content in the game, and yet, it is the only page with a comment like this, which you reverted when I tried to improve it. And as I said over on the official forums, I was initially hesitant to participate at all because of what ended up actually happening.

As opposed to not informing people and telling them to go find out by talking to others because its not on the wiki. I would rather someone who doesn't play anymore gets upset at the "lack of neutrality" than being upfront with people.

People can tell by reading about the content whether or not it's something they'd be interested in participating in. And I think, in total honesty, that the information contained within is enough to dissuade anyone who isn't seriously interested. We don't need to tell them up front that "hardly anybody does this."

Again: It's not just because it's ballista. I would object to an article being written in this manner anywhere. But as it is, this is the only one I found, despite the fact that it's far from the only "irrelevant" content in the game.

Most of the other content I might use that word to describe doesn't have a page at all, and that's where that other wiki has you beat, because it has neutrally-presented information about pretty much everything, whereas I can come here and , there is either no article at all, or in one case, even a joke about how maybe you'll get around to doing it some day. But you seemed kind of offended when I suggested that there are some things that one information source or the other does better. FFXIclopedia at least has an actual page about Garrison- and who the heck does that? (I don't know that I ever did it back when it was relevant, if it ever was in the first place)

I wrote that blurb really quickly because we had no page for it, and I made one.

That's respectably honest of you; But if that's the case, then why are you so against me trying to make it better? It doesn't sound from your post that you cared much in the first place. Why not let someone who does care polish the article and make it better? (Isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits of a wiki anyway?)

Neutral point of view is a good thing. You really shouldn't stand in the way of that.

[Spicyryan]

I have revised the blurb in question to something more neutral. Can we agree on this?

More over, Ballista and it's successor '''[[Brenner]]''', are most often an event where players enter to test certain spells or abilities for game mechanic research. [[Ballista]] and Brenner are long-forgotten by Square Enix. As a result, both events are extremely imbalanced for recreational PvP due to a lack of any updates. Which can make for enjoying them as a serious side activity somewhat difficult. For example, [[Quick Draw]] with modern equipment will just KO players.

[Alhanalem]

First: I do appreciate you giving some consideration here.

I have revised the blurb in question to something more neutral. Can we agree on this?

I'm really not sure that's better, but I can respect you for at least evaluating it. As a matter of curiosity, have you actually done what you've described? Regardless, Black mages can cast death- and vs players, it's just instant death, not damage. I don't pretend that it can liekly even be balanced. Ballista is for entertainment value, and when people look at it that way, it has some value and purpose.
Removing "more over" makes the sentnce less negative and by itself would be an improvement. But consider this statement:
" Which can make for enjoying them as a serious side activity somewhat difficult."
I don't really even suggest that anyone take it too seriously. If you don't try to take it too seriously, it can provide some amusement. And that's really what it was for. Maybe many years ago, both SE and I wanted it to be more, but I'm absolutely fine with it just being a diversion.


Look. I added a point into the section about the combat modifications that recognizes the issues, and how later progression systems cause issues with the content.

The real reality is, even when I lead ballista events, we usually don't really play the game mode so much as just mess around- it has entertainment value in that regard.

Also, most of the people who still do it utilize the level caps where a semblance of balance is still possible. The point is, if people want to, there are ways to get something out of it. I realize we don't often do things "just for fun" in this game, but that's entirely what Ballista is for. No one cares about a few hundred XP and gil. Heck that's half the reason it died in the first place, there wasn't much incentive to participate.

I just really don't see why there needs to be a blurb about the merits (or lack of) at the beginning in the first place- I wanted to delete that entirely but figured you would object more. And again, your other content articles generally don't do this- The Odyssey page, for example, doesn't lead with a blurb saying how "relevant" the content is and how much you should really do it because everyone else is. I have no issue with that page at all, it's fair and balanced.

The rest of the ballista just more or less comes from the official info and the FFXIclopedia article anyway. Just let people read the page and come to their own conclusions. That's what I'm asking for.

[Spicyryan]

Removed "more over".

[Buffy]

The most action ballista has seen since my grandmother got pregnant.

[Byrthnoth]

^ ^ ^

I got mastery rank 8 and I am still missing the basic "you have done a single Ballista" title.

[Alhanalem]

The most action ballista has seen since my grandmother got pregnant.

I admit, I laughed.

But swing by Shiva, I host it every once and a while. Like I said in the thread, it's not serious, we kinda just smack each other around for a while and get a few laughs at the crazy stuff that happens.

Removed "more over".

OK. I won't push my luck.

Also, you get some points for having the GEO and RUN titles listed, as I had no idea what they were or if they even bothered to add them.

We only use the Diorama which allows anyone to participate (a key edit I put in there), because nobody can be arsed to do the sidequest. That was true even when there was still more of a community around it. I'd try to recruit some friends, they might be like "okay, sure." And then when I tell them what they had to do to unlock it, they're like "ehh... maybe later." lol

[Fwahm]

It looks like the mob page for Ochu got zapped when the weapon Ochu came out, so all links that point to the monster actually bring you to the weapon page.

[billnes]

Fix for Quickstart 1-119 Guide

Question 10: "Why is the game updating so slow? I want to play!"

Sentence one of answer currently reads as: "Back in the early 2000s when 56k was still a thing to consider."
Sentence one should be changed to read as: "Back in the early 2000s when 56k was still a thing."

I argue that 56k dial-up no longer has to be "considered" because it is no longer a "thing".

[Spicyryan]

Fix for Quickstart 1-119 Guide

Question 10: "Why is the game updating so slow? I want to play!"

Sentence one of answer currently reads as: "Back in the early 2000s when 56k was still a thing to consider."
Sentence one should be changed to read as: "Back in the early 2000s when 56k was still a thing."

I argue that 56k dial-up no longer has to be "considered" because it is no longer a "thing".

That's a very minor semantics change.

[coldreactive]

Is there any specific order I should be placing the Checklists?

Because after I put a handful of them into my userpage, they end up being pushed around weirdly. I would post a new thread, but I can't while I'm under ten posts.

[Spicyryan]

Is there any specific order I should be placing the Checklists?

Because after I put a handful of them into my userpage, they end up being pushed around weirdly. I would post a new thread, but I can't while I'm under ten posts.

No order is required. They will appear in the other you put them in, top down, left to right, depending on space available.

I just checked your page and didn't see anything out of the ordinary.