Seeking Input About Potential Change to Class Spell List on Wiki

[radbeard]

hey. I've been working a bit on revamping how spells are displayed in the class spell lists but I wanted to get some input from people while I'm going through this process. I've mostly done wizard spells in this scratch space, that I link to below, (levels 1-50). I also did a smattering of necro and shaman spells. Please let me know what you think, particularly changes that might make it better. The better I can get it earlier in the process the less work it will take to revise. If people like it, or if we can come up with tweaks to improve it, i'll work on revising other classes as well. Thanks!


https://wiki.project1999.com/User:Radbeard/Spells

[loramin]

I think the overall idea for providing a quick summary of each spell's effects (with more precision/detail than the current description column) is awesome.

I've already given you my feedback over PM so I won't repeat it, but speaking as a wiki addict myself I just want to commend you for taking the initiative here. I hope everyone offers positive and constructive criticism.

[Triiz]

I always thought the Druid alternate spell list was the best way to do a spell list with it's addition of icons, spell info, and vendor areas, but I'm sure it would be a lot of work to do for every class.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Druid/Spells

[radbeard]

I think the druid spell list is the most beautiful one I've seen. In my mind however it eats up too much vertical space for the class list, probably because of the height of the icon (this is just my opinion). Also as a preference I like to be able to quickly scan the "max effect" of spells, because thats just how I use the list. But I don't know how everyone else uses it.

The way i've done things certainly is a reflection of what I value, but I want to do my best to incorporate what other people want out of it.

[BarackObooma]

I like your version! I hate when the current spell descriptions goes to level 65 in some of it's calculations.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by BarackObooma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I hate when the current spell descriptions goes to level 65 in some of it's calculations.

Amen to that. When I was working on the buff lines page that drove me crazy, and there are probably a bunch of buffs on that page now that are off by a single point because I didn't do the conversion math from 65 down to 60 correctly in my head [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Para99]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Amen to that. When I was working on the buff lines page that drove me crazy, and there are probably a bunch of buffs on that page now that are off by a single point because I didn't do the conversion math from 65 down to 60 correctly in my head [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very few of them do you need to do the math in your head. Look up the spell on Lucy, go the "history" tab and scroll all the way towards the bottom. If the P99 wiki has the calculations listed for 65 there will almost always be a log on Lucy of something like this (from Forlorn Deeds)

2002-09-04 11:33 Changed Durationtext from 2.9 mins @L57 to 3.0 mins @L60 to 2.9 mins @L57 to 3.3 mins @L65

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spellhist...12&source=Live

[Zuranthium]

Current version is better and more classic. Your version looks like a boring spreadsheet rather than something mystical.

[Alemorikec]

I do prefer the more detailed version myself. I find the old "classic" style is too vague for me. Just my cents.

[Balimon]

Look's good , I like it!