Difference between revisions of "Talk:Combination Items"
Gitterrost4 (talk | contribs) |
(large graph - pro) |
||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
|} | |} | ||
(side note: I agree about [[Items by Name]] being redundant and I marked it for deletion)--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 09:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | (side note: I agree about [[Items by Name]] being redundant and I marked it for deletion)--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 09:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
I have put together a complete (or so I hope) combination graph. It is, however, fairly large (1.5 MB; approx. 10000 x 5000 Pixels). So I don't know if I should upload it.--gitterrost4; 2009/07/13 10:54 EST | I have put together a complete (or so I hope) combination graph. It is, however, fairly large (1.5 MB; approx. 10000 x 5000 Pixels). So I don't know if I should upload it.--gitterrost4; 2009/07/13 10:54 EST | ||
| + | :I'm all for large and flashy images, as long as the server can support it. Only a thumbnail to the image should be included, though, since this resolution is really frickin' large. --[[User:Alarion|Alarion]] 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:19, 13 July 2009
Fixed the Reinforced Pants/Safety Pants--User:Trisk11/01/08
Paradox Naught needs to be added --Reaper 18:10, 18 January 2008 (MST)
It's not exactly a combination item, though. soleta 20:58, 18 January 2008 (MST)
then a new area should be added for item creation. it might help other people find items made like it--Reaper 21:57, 18 January 2008 (MST)
This is just a thought but shouldn't we separate the potions from the other assembly items, to cut down that massive list.--Reaper 14:30, 10 May 2008 (MST)
- I was thinking the same thing when I added them, but I followed the precedent set by Filter, Teardrop gem, and other items that could be considered similar. I guess you'd have to separate out all of the miscellaneous items. Not the kind of thing I'd want to do without some sort of consensus, but for what it's worth I absolutely agree with what you're saying.--Jesus 03:22, 11 May 2008 (MST)
- Well we could always make it a "usable item assembly table" that way people could find them with more ease.--Reaper 22:15, 14 June 2008 (MST)
Is there a reason for all the duplicate information? Do people come to this page interested in what things do? I see this mainly as a repository of all combination items. If someone is interested in what something does, wont he go to the relevant page anyway?--Muhandes 15:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It can be handy if, say, you have plassteel and want to see what you could build with it. Or if you just wanted a general overview. It mean, it's not as bad as Items by Name... Cristiona
- Going on with this idea, I have plasteel plating and I want to see how it can be used. I can go to plasteel plating and see that it has 8 uses but maybe I want to see what they do. So I come here and how do I search for them? Try sorting by the "Items" column and you will see the problem - you only see 5 of the 8 since in the other plasteel plating is the second component. Maybe a table like this will be slightly better? This way at least with two sorts you can find them all.
| Item1 | Item2 | Creates | Category | Power | Level
Required |
Autosell
Value |
Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| plasteel plating | denim jacket | plasteel shirt | Shirt | 55 | 10 | 175 | |
| plasteel plating | denim pants | plasteel trousers | Pants | 55 | 10 | 175 | |
| smoldering ash | plasteel plating | infernium slab | Miscellaneous Item | N/A | 0 | 80 | Can be welded |
| plasteel plating | flak helmet | plasteel helmet | Helmet | 55 | 10 | 175 |
(side note: I agree about Items by Name being redundant and I marked it for deletion)--Muhandes 09:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I have put together a complete (or so I hope) combination graph. It is, however, fairly large (1.5 MB; approx. 10000 x 5000 Pixels). So I don't know if I should upload it.--gitterrost4; 2009/07/13 10:54 EST
- I'm all for large and flashy images, as long as the server can support it. Only a thumbnail to the image should be included, though, since this resolution is really frickin' large. --Alarion 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
