Talk:Crafting
From SpiralKnights
Would it be worthwhile turning the "Drops From" and "Recipes" into links to the relevant monster/equipment page? -d0gr0ck 06:06, 2 December 2010
Sounds like a good idea. I'll try to make the coloured links code a template to make things less annoying to do. Also, if anyone knows how, adding the show/hide function to the recipe list (and maybe the drops from list) would be very handy. Levonis 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Pupu the Rare Materials list is completely unnecessary..
Ingredient pages
Since Pauling has been asking about this in edit summaries. I vote for individual pages for a few reasons:
- show off the larger nicer looking versions of the icons just because they're neat
- maybe I'm just old, but the table with the information on what drops it and what it's used to make is very very useful, but the font is truly microscopic (yes, I know I can change my font size in my browser, but it ruins everything else on the page and I don't want to have to go back and forth)
- if there's a reference to another movie or something else pop culture (or an SK based back story to the item), an individual page would be where that information could be placed
The second reason really is the convincing point for me because it increases the usability of the wiki, which is the whole purpose of a wiki. --Equinox 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the long-term benefits of ingredient pages; short-term, I tend to get cranky about the mess of unhelpful stubs. (I've been using the "random" button to find pages that need work, but that gets less viable as the army of stubs crowds in. Admittedly, that's a terrible thing to base policy decisions on.) If we do propose to create individual ingredient pages, we should create a few really good quality articles that incorporate everything we want to appear; then future pages can use that as a template.
- Suggested fields include: Item name, star level, description, drop locations, drop monsters, crafting uses, and other notes (which can include cultural references or info about rarity). --Pauling 00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Missing descriptions for table update
Just some notes for when the table is updated (have asked about royal core & for correction to flame soul). --Equinox 16:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
zee core A pungent mass pulled from a slimy assailant. Its aroma is an excellent remedy for insomnia, as well as nighttime sniffling and sneezing.
volcanic iron An extraordinary metal imbued with the blazing energy of magma.
trojan horseshoe A jet black horseshoe. It appears relatively harmless.
toxic core A solid gelatinous lump that oozes with vitriol.
sun silver An extraordinary metal imbued with the radiant light of the sky.
shadow steel An extraordinary metal imbued with the creeping darkness of the Underworld.
rocky core A delicious gummy treat with an impenetrable rocky shell. More than a few teeth have been lost by knights attempting to get at the gooey interior.
rock salt A small amount of Clockworks mineral that's been infused with absolutely nothing. It hungrily draws at nearby essences and flavors, making it a staple in cooking.
primal ore An extraordinary metal imbued with the savage spirit of the wild.
plague essence A powerful essence left behind when a creature perishes from a particularly putrid disease.
meteor mote A small piece of a rare material that is said to have fallen from the sky. It's still warm to the touch.
flame soul A powerful essence that left behind when a creature perishes durng a blind rage.
drake scale A solid scale wrested from a brutal beast.
dragon scale An armored scale from what was thought to be an extinct creature. It reflects light with an otherwordly sheen.
chroma tear A crystallized Chromalisk tear suitable as a lens for focusing weaponry, or for correcting myopia.
blighted bone A plagued patella that's seen better days, after having seen a few better knights.
Order?
What order are the materials in the table listed in? In the inventory, they seem to be in alphabetical order, regardless of star. Why don't we do the same here? Am I missing something? Jlh0605 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- You can always use the funny little icons in the table header to sort it with whatever you want. You're missing the past - it was only about 2 weeks ago when they added a large number of new icons. This table used to be grouped by icon and the sorted alphabetically within the icon type. --Equinox 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Split article
Perhaps the List of Known crafting materials should be made into its own page? People looking for information about crafting will not most likely want to see that list, and it takes a while to scroll down the page to see the other links section. Yes, there is a link to it, but I really don't think the list belongs on this page. - bobomaster 03:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- In 2012, someone thankfully did this, and then we had to overhaul it again after drop patterns changed in 2013...But the necessary overhaul didn't get done until 2015. It was an elephant in the room for a long time! Check out the materials page and its history, if anyone is interested. --Novaster 03:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Messy layout
I was wondering if someone could maybe add in some tables and spruce the crafting page up a bit with more pictures. --Cdst16 04:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- How's it look as of the 20:05, 27 October 2015 edit? I went for simplification and concise order of information. There were many weird links and a lot of content was repeated, so the article definitely needed some touching up. --Novaster 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- We seem to have lost a lot of content in the edits of this week. For example, there is no longer any discussion of whether heat level affects the quality of the upgrade. That may sound dumb, but it's a pretty frequent question on the forums. Why are special alchemy machines no longer mentioned? And so on. Jdavis 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, didn't mean to take the heat information out. Appropriate alchemy machines are mentioned clearly in the Process section, and we're working on a list format. Check the edit history of List of Alchemy Stations for progress. Is there anything else missing? --Novaster 14:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would anyone propose merging List of Alchemy Stations back into crafting? I can splice it back in after making the sortable table for it. --Novaster 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not merging is fine with me. But there are three distinct processes, depending on whether the required alchemy machine is (A) ordinary type, (B) furniture type, or (C) other type. I think that we could explain that much more clearly. Jdavis 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- We seem to have lost a lot of content in the edits of this week. For example, there is no longer any discussion of whether heat level affects the quality of the upgrade. That may sound dumb, but it's a pretty frequent question on the forums. Why are special alchemy machines no longer mentioned? And so on. Jdavis 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- As we have discussed in the past, "Notes" sections are rarely valuable, because the stuff in them is no more "notes" than anything else on the page. The current Notes section consists of one paragraph on economics and two important paragraphs on upgrading.
- I propose that we move the first paragraph into Economics. I propose that we split the Process section into From Scratch and Upgrading sections, and put all upgrading information in the Upgrading section. Jdavis 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edit it how you think it would be most useful, then we will edit it again and again. The article needed updating, and the article has undergone massive changes in the past (it used to list materials...), so it seems to be a bit of a problem child. --Novaster 16:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, where have we discussed notes section in the past in this manner? The "Notes" section seems to be a standard on almost every wiki article in almost every wiki (though some call it "Trivia", which is bad, and I remember discussing that). Link would help a lot. --Novaster 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore, multiple sections lead to messy format. Instead of multiple tiny sections (as the page was before, hence the messy look), attempt to make them readable, as was done with the "process" section. --Novaster 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have made my edit --- all organization, no wording changes. I hope you agree that the sectioning is very clean. I will try to find you that link. Jdavis 17:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find a link, so maybe you are right that we have discussed Trivia sections but not Notes sections. Sorry. To clarify, I don't have a blanket objection to Notes. Small, non-crucial asides can go well in such a section. But I object to important, main-line information being thrown into Notes when there is somewhere better to put it. Jdavis 17:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That does flow pretty nicely, but I'll have to adjust the captions I put below the images so they're not bulky and shove the table into the left-hand side of the page. I have a lot of references for notes/trivia sections on anime/gaming wikis, but the big mommy wikipedia seems to fuse the "notes section terminology" with references, which I find a bit odd, unless "notes" are considered "footnotes." It's pretty inconsistent between article families such as biology, history, and so on. Here's the thread where we discussed trivia and over-bulleting. --Novaster 17:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
So, is there anything else missing? I'm leaning against merging the List of Alchemy Stations with Crafting, because the information is so specific to the machines. Of course, they are linked to each other. Clearly I hope. --Novaster 02:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- A lot of detail has been removed about recipes and materials. I guess it's okay. There's always a balance to be struck between "read other pages to learn about related topics" and "let's include the most important points here, so that readers don't have to bounce around".
- I can't find anything else missing. Of course we can polish the text itself.
- In the Economics section, the numbers of materials required for each star level are usually right, but there are a few exceptions, including Perfect Mask of Seerus and Swiftstrike Buckler. We need to hedge the wording a bit. Jdavis 14:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- We're well aware of the exceptions. There are also within-pattern oddities, where the quantity of star level materials are the same, but the materials used are not (see Lightning Capacitor). The current
- The following table summarizes the standard crafting costs of most items. Items crafted at special alchemy machines may or may not follow some of these patterns. There are currently no transmutable 0-star items.
- Is not sufficient? Of course, "most" is not bolded in the published page. --Novaster 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- We could mention 1 or 2 exceptions to justify the statement? Is that what is meant by "hedge the wording a bit"? --Novaster 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I had a go at it. I don't like assuming things about the desires of others, so an example of how it could be worded and/or visualized better helps me, personally. How is it now? The seerus mask exception (and the crown crafting cost of Obsidian Edge, etc) is covered by the special alchemy station part of the statement. I hope. --Novaster 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You gave me more than I wanted. :) That much detail is not desirable, to me at least. So I edited it down a bit. Jdavis 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yikes, that wording is very confusing. Items certainly have a recipe cost, the cost to buy the recipe is not a factor. We should not use italics in this manner, either.[1] Use of italics for emphasis on a wiki looks unprofessional. --Novaster 16:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am likely oversensitive to use of italics and bolding because I am super guilty of it and some of it still remains around the wiki. Anyway, I have separated content of the economics section, so that the table simply pertains to the "standard" alchemy machine, with mention of special station item behavior on its own in the economics section instead of associated with the table. --Novaster 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You gave me more than I wanted. :) That much detail is not desirable, to me at least. So I edited it down a bit. Jdavis 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Snarbolax Coat has a 25,000 crown recipe cost? Jdavis 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (I don't care about that particular italics usage. Let's keep it unitalicized, as you like it. But I reserve the right to italicize for emphasis in the future. Jdavis 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC) :)
- You are right, the link I used does not forbid use of italics for emphasis, just outlines its conventional use. I really wish italics and bold were forbidden for use in emphasis, because emphasis should be inherent in the writing. Italics and bolded text look unprofessional because they are shortcuts and honestly interrupt the flow of writing into the human brain. If the writing is not inherently emphasized/clear etc., then its phrasing should be adjusted instead of using the shortcut. All the same, sparingly means sparingly. It just shouldn't be used, instead, better writing should. Why is the snarbolax coat being mentioned here? It has a 5,000 crown cost. Nothing in the writing of either the item's page or the crafting page implies that this item has a 25k crafting cost. --Novaster 19:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Apparently this wiki does not have a {{outdent}} tag.)
- Like me, you've probably read many magazine articles, newspaper articles, novels, textbooks, academic papers, etc. that use italics occasionally for emphasis. Standard editorial practice seems to allow them. But this is not worth arguing about right now, as I have already ceded this particular instance of italicization.
- I brought up the Snarbolax Coat because:
- My edit said "Items crafted at special alchemy machines often have no recipe cost."
- You replied that this was "very confusing", because "Items certainly have a recipe cost..."
- So I gave a concrete example of an item crafted at special alchemy machine with no recipe cost.
- Make sense? But again the argument is settled for now, because the wording on the wiki page now has enough hedges for cases like this. Jdavis 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly thought you'd found a mistake on the snarbolax page and went to check if it said 25,000 :P, and I even checked videos to make sure it wasn't changed or something. The "recipe cost" edit you made earlier inspired me to fix up wording on the recipe page, to clarify immediately that not all recipes are at some point arsenal items. In translation as well as across generations, it is difficult to define "recipe cost," because one may consider the "recipe cost" of an item to be the price you pay for the components when, say, shopping for ingredients...at the
grocery storeauction house. I hope my revisions of the recipe page are, well, better/clear. In this day and age, recipes irl are rarely something secret that you find in a safe/pay someone for...when you can just look it up online. Just earlier today I saw someone's recipe for a Chick Fil A sandwich. So the concept is somewhat difficult to convey. --Novaster 20:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly thought you'd found a mistake on the snarbolax page and went to check if it said 25,000 :P, and I even checked videos to make sure it wasn't changed or something. The "recipe cost" edit you made earlier inspired me to fix up wording on the recipe page, to clarify immediately that not all recipes are at some point arsenal items. In translation as well as across generations, it is difficult to define "recipe cost," because one may consider the "recipe cost" of an item to be the price you pay for the components when, say, shopping for ingredients...at the
If there are no other immediate issues regarding the crafting page messy layout+recent edits, I'll archive the discussion soon. I'd like to hear feedback from the original requester as well. --Novaster 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely looking better, now that you guys added in images and improved the amount of information. The page is still a stub though and still needs additional information. I was thinking of mentioning Hall of Heroes (as you have to craft to proceed to the next rank). Keep up the good work and this page will be even better than it already is! :) --Cdst16 05:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Terminology
Back to spiral knights, do we know why the button says "transmute" instead of "craft?" There are plenty of terminology conflicts in the game (such as "crash pod," "escape pod," etc.) as well as in the release notes over time, but this discrepancy seems pretty major. Any forum threads from editors in the past on this? --Novaster 17:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well here is one of my thoughts after looking up the definition of "Transmute". Transmute relates to changing the form and makes sense when we also know that alchemical relates to the changing of a chemical form. Now this again makes sense when the items that you craft weapons with is called an alchemy machine. Hope this helps and as for the pod descrepency I am unsure of. --Cdst16 06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Section Titles
I don't think "from scratch" is the best title, because the section describes general crafting. Why not "basics" or a more encompassing word? --Novaster 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my point is that the section should not describe general crafting. It should describe crafting where there is no precursor item.
- Why? The precursor part of the crafting process is about as complicated as the rest of the crafting process altogether. So if we're trying to break this information into easily digestible chunks, it makes sense to split off the part involving a precursor item.
- That said, the title "Basics" is fine with me. Jdavis 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Messy layout
I was wondering if someone could maybe add in some tables and spruce the crafting page up a bit with more pictures. --Cdst16 04:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- How's it look as of the 20:05, 27 October 2015 edit? I went for simplification and concise order of information. There were many weird links and a lot of content was repeated, so the article definitely needed some touching up. --Novaster 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- We seem to have lost a lot of content in the edits of this week. For example, there is no longer any discussion of whether heat level affects the quality of the upgrade. That may sound dumb, but it's a pretty frequent question on the forums. Why are special alchemy machines no longer mentioned? And so on. Jdavis 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, didn't mean to take the heat information out. Appropriate alchemy machines are mentioned clearly in the Process section, and we're working on a list format. Check the edit history of List of Alchemy Stations for progress. Is there anything else missing? --Novaster 14:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would anyone propose merging List of Alchemy Stations back into crafting? I can splice it back in after making the sortable table for it. --Novaster 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not merging is fine with me. But there are three distinct processes, depending on whether the required alchemy machine is (A) ordinary type, (B) furniture type, or (C) other type. I think that we could explain that much more clearly. Jdavis 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- We seem to have lost a lot of content in the edits of this week. For example, there is no longer any discussion of whether heat level affects the quality of the upgrade. That may sound dumb, but it's a pretty frequent question on the forums. Why are special alchemy machines no longer mentioned? And so on. Jdavis 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- As we have discussed in the past, "Notes" sections are rarely valuable, because the stuff in them is no more "notes" than anything else on the page. The current Notes section consists of one paragraph on economics and two important paragraphs on upgrading.
- I propose that we move the first paragraph into Economics. I propose that we split the Process section into From Scratch and Upgrading sections, and put all upgrading information in the Upgrading section. Jdavis 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edit it how you think it would be most useful, then we will edit it again and again. The article needed updating, and the article has undergone massive changes in the past (it used to list materials...), so it seems to be a bit of a problem child. --Novaster 16:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, where have we discussed notes section in the past in this manner? The "Notes" section seems to be a standard on almost every wiki article in almost every wiki (though some call it "Trivia", which is bad, and I remember discussing that). Link would help a lot. --Novaster 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore, multiple sections lead to messy format. Instead of multiple tiny sections (as the page was before, hence the messy look), attempt to make them readable, as was done with the "process" section. --Novaster 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have made my edit --- all organization, no wording changes. I hope you agree that the sectioning is very clean. I will try to find you that link. Jdavis 17:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find a link, so maybe you are right that we have discussed Trivia sections but not Notes sections. Sorry. To clarify, I don't have a blanket objection to Notes. Small, non-crucial asides can go well in such a section. But I object to important, main-line information being thrown into Notes when there is somewhere better to put it. Jdavis 17:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That does flow pretty nicely, but I'll have to adjust the captions I put below the images so they're not bulky and shove the table into the left-hand side of the page. I have a lot of references for notes/trivia sections on anime/gaming wikis, but the big mommy wikipedia seems to fuse the "notes section terminology" with references, which I find a bit odd, unless "notes" are considered "footnotes." It's pretty inconsistent between article families such as biology, history, and so on. Here's the thread where we discussed trivia and over-bulleting. --Novaster 17:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
So, is there anything else missing? I'm leaning against merging the List of Alchemy Stations with Crafting, because the information is so specific to the machines. Of course, they are linked to each other. Clearly I hope. --Novaster 02:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- A lot of detail has been removed about recipes and materials. I guess it's okay. There's always a balance to be struck between "read other pages to learn about related topics" and "let's include the most important points here, so that readers don't have to bounce around".
- I can't find anything else missing. Of course we can polish the text itself.
- In the Economics section, the numbers of materials required for each star level are usually right, but there are a few exceptions, including Perfect Mask of Seerus and Swiftstrike Buckler. We need to hedge the wording a bit. Jdavis 14:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- We're well aware of the exceptions. There are also within-pattern oddities, where the quantity of star level materials are the same, but the materials used are not (see Lightning Capacitor). The current
- The following table summarizes the standard crafting costs of most items. Items crafted at special alchemy machines may or may not follow some of these patterns. There are currently no transmutable 0-star items.
- Is not sufficient? Of course, "most" is not bolded in the published page. --Novaster 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- We could mention 1 or 2 exceptions to justify the statement? Is that what is meant by "hedge the wording a bit"? --Novaster 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I had a go at it. I don't like assuming things about the desires of others, so an example of how it could be worded and/or visualized better helps me, personally. How is it now? The seerus mask exception (and the crown crafting cost of Obsidian Edge, etc) is covered by the special alchemy station part of the statement. I hope. --Novaster 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You gave me more than I wanted. :) That much detail is not desirable, to me at least. So I edited it down a bit. Jdavis 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yikes, that wording is very confusing. Items certainly have a recipe cost, the cost to buy the recipe is not a factor. We should not use italics in this manner, either.[2] Use of italics for emphasis on a wiki looks unprofessional. --Novaster 16:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am likely oversensitive to use of italics and bolding because I am super guilty of it and some of it still remains around the wiki. Anyway, I have separated content of the economics section, so that the table simply pertains to the "standard" alchemy machine, with mention of special station item behavior on its own in the economics section instead of associated with the table. --Novaster 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You gave me more than I wanted. :) That much detail is not desirable, to me at least. So I edited it down a bit. Jdavis 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Snarbolax Coat has a 25,000 crown recipe cost? Jdavis 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (I don't care about that particular italics usage. Let's keep it unitalicized, as you like it. But I reserve the right to italicize for emphasis in the future. Jdavis 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC) :)
- You are right, the link I used does not forbid use of italics for emphasis, just outlines its conventional use. I really wish italics and bold were forbidden for use in emphasis, because emphasis should be inherent in the writing. Italics and bolded text look unprofessional because they are shortcuts and honestly interrupt the flow of writing into the human brain. If the writing is not inherently emphasized/clear etc., then its phrasing should be adjusted instead of using the shortcut. All the same, sparingly means sparingly. It just shouldn't be used, instead, better writing should. Why is the snarbolax coat being mentioned here? It has a 5,000 crown cost. Nothing in the writing of either the item's page or the crafting page implies that this item has a 25k crafting cost. --Novaster 19:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Apparently this wiki does not have a {{outdent}} tag.)
- Like me, you've probably read many magazine articles, newspaper articles, novels, textbooks, academic papers, etc. that use italics occasionally for emphasis. Standard editorial practice seems to allow them. But this is not worth arguing about right now, as I have already ceded this particular instance of italicization.
- I brought up the Snarbolax Coat because:
- My edit said "Items crafted at special alchemy machines often have no recipe cost."
- You replied that this was "very confusing", because "Items certainly have a recipe cost..."
- So I gave a concrete example of an item crafted at special alchemy machine with no recipe cost.
- Make sense? But again the argument is settled for now, because the wording on the wiki page now has enough hedges for cases like this. Jdavis 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly thought you'd found a mistake on the snarbolax page and went to check if it said 25,000 :P, and I even checked videos to make sure it wasn't changed or something. The "recipe cost" edit you made earlier inspired me to fix up wording on the recipe page, to clarify immediately that not all recipes are at some point arsenal items. In translation as well as across generations, it is difficult to define "recipe cost," because one may consider the "recipe cost" of an item to be the price you pay for the components when, say, shopping for ingredients...at the
grocery storeauction house. I hope my revisions of the recipe page are, well, better/clear. In this day and age, recipes irl are rarely something secret that you find in a safe/pay someone for...when you can just look it up online. Just earlier today I saw someone's recipe for a Chick Fil A sandwich. So the concept is somewhat difficult to convey. --Novaster 20:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly thought you'd found a mistake on the snarbolax page and went to check if it said 25,000 :P, and I even checked videos to make sure it wasn't changed or something. The "recipe cost" edit you made earlier inspired me to fix up wording on the recipe page, to clarify immediately that not all recipes are at some point arsenal items. In translation as well as across generations, it is difficult to define "recipe cost," because one may consider the "recipe cost" of an item to be the price you pay for the components when, say, shopping for ingredients...at the
If there are no other immediate issues regarding the crafting page messy layout+recent edits, I'll archive the discussion soon. I'd like to hear feedback from the original requester as well. --Novaster 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Terminology
Back to spiral knights, do we know why the button says "transmute" instead of "craft?" There are plenty of terminology conflicts in the game (such as "crash pod," "escape pod," etc.) as well as in the release notes over time, but this discrepancy seems pretty major. Any forum threads from editors in the past on this? --Novaster 17:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely looking better, now that you guys added in images and improved the amount of information. The page is still a stub though and still needs additional information. I was thinking of mentioning Hall of Heroes (as you have to craft to proceed to the next rank). Keep up the good work and this page will be even better than it already is! :) --Cdst16 05:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Section Titles
I don't think "from scratch" is the best title, because the section describes general crafting. Why not "basics" or a more encompassing word? --Novaster 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my point is that the section should not describe general crafting. It should describe crafting where there is no precursor item.
- Why? The precursor part of the crafting process is about as complicated as the rest of the crafting process altogether. So if we're trying to break this information into easily digestible chunks, it makes sense to split off the part involving a precursor item.
- That said, the title "Basics" is fine with me. Jdavis 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
