Forum:Another project: Vehicle category

Forums: Village pump → Another project: Vehicle category
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Moved from Project talk:Village pump#Another project: Vehicle category. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vehicle: something you get in, which has its own HP (and optionally mana, fury, energy, etc), and its own abilities. Example: Alliance Steam Tank. Lots of quests have these. Sometimes they are mechanical vehicles, sometimes drakes, and sometimes illusions. Most often, they are only available for a particular quest. Some are available at any time with particular restrictions (WG tanks, Grizzly Hills shredders). I think it is a distinct enough description that a category could be made for them. As usefully, a boilerplate of some sort could be created for their abilities. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking to get a boilerplate made for vehicle articles, or do you mean we should create a Category:Vehicles? -Howbizr (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A split may be needed of lore vehicle vs in-game vehicles if that happens. I am also reminded of this.--SWM2448 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, SWM. You're right. A split would be needed. Howbizr, both boilerplate and category. (Now, category distinct from 'lore vehicles', whatever those may consist of.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. I had started a very small sampling of the vehicles (game-wise) I've encountered, here, fwiw. -- Harveydrone 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason Engineer-made flying machine mounts aren't on your list, Harveydrone? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:11 PM PST 20 Apr 2009

The UI is that of a mount, perhaps?--SWM2448 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay well then that needs to be spelled out a little more clearly. I'm not sure "vehicle" is really the right name. Vehicle implies mechanical, but really this list is about destructible mounts, in many ways. Also, we already have a Vehicles article which is a more lore oriented list and needs to be updated (aka it is pretty cr@ppy). I'm not sure why the article isn't "vehicle" (singlular). We should probably distinguish between the in-game definition of a vehicle (based on characteristics and UI for using) and the lore version of vehicle which is more about things you ride on and tend to be mechanical. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:20 AM PST 21 Apr 2009

-> Fandy: What SWM said, I think. The "vehicles" on my user page (and what I understand Eirik means) are those with the new UI introduced along with Wrath, with its own abilities, usually own action bar, own health, etc. Yes, there is a terminology issue since "vehicle" is a normal word for other things in the Warcraft universe (ie, any non-living thing that goes). And for that matter, some "vehicles" are actually animals. I was thinking in the context of the Vehicles (mechanic) page (which also should be singluar). I thought I heard that this was Blizzard's term for the new mechanic/UI, but I'd have to find a source for that. -- Harveydrone 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: From [[1]]: refers to "new vehicle-based content", and that "certain types of vehicles and mounts can now carry passengers". Not that Blizzard's terminology is always the best, but I believe this is where the term came from. -- Harveydrone 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also vehicle like mounts that don't have special abilities. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there still vehicles that haven't been changed to mounts? I know my  [Traveler's Tundra Mammoth] was converted, and I thought the hogs were as well. -Howbizr (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of items in the game which Blizzard defines as "vehicles" - quest "mounts", siege engines such as those in Ulduar and Wintergrasp, cannons (the stationary ones in Wintergrasp and SoA), certain Drakes and Giants, the horses running around the Path of Iron in Grizzly Hills (when on certain quests) and more. There are many different varieties. Not all move, not all can be owned by a player (not sure if any can post 3.1), not all are mechanical, not all require being on a quest, etc. The only thing they have in common is that they have their own hitpoints and sometimes their own abilities and resource pool, and they trigger their own UI when used.

As others have posted above, I think the term "vehicles" is broad and misleading. The most fitting name I could think of was "World of Warcraft mountable objects", which while fitting, just doesn't quite sound appropriate. It is important to remember that riding mounts are actually spells that change your appearance and speed, whereas the things we are discussing here are actual in-game objects. Without a rider, they are still visible in game (although a new copy may be spawned on use) and when in use they are targeted separately from the user. --Wige (T - C) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how Harveydrone decided on "vehicle" as a name for this type of thing, I'm just saying we need to make the distinctions clear in any main namespace articles. Also, the Blizzard quote says, "vehicles and mounts can now carry passengers," so it isn't even clear from that that Blizzard would say a vehicle is something with the new UI, since they mention mounts as well. Maybe we should have a Vehicle-based UI article that describes the UI and lists the occasions where it appears along with the devices, mounts, vehicles, etc. I'm not too fond of "World of Warcraft mountable objects" since that conflates these types of things with in-game objects which many are not. Maybe just Category:World of Warcraft mountables and have that category in other categories like Category:World of Warcraft mount items, Category:World of Warcraft quest items (which is still Category:Quest items), etc.? It looks like we need new categories for siege vehicles in-game, regardless. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:29 AM PST 22 Apr 2009

I personally like the name World of Warcraft mountables for the category, although I think we would need to make it clear on the category page that it does not include mounts, which are spells. Mountables are, as far as I can tell, objects. Even the ones that you purchase as mounts are objects, albeit objects that players summon - they can be targeted and interacted with by other players, have their own attributes, etc. I don't think the category for these items should be in the mounts category (they aren't all mounts, such as the cannons in Wintergrasp) or the quests category, since many are not related to quests. Another name I was considering was "World of Warcraft player controlled objects", which would be distinguished from pets (which are player controlled mobs). However, not all mountables are controlled by the player. Some, such as the planes from Dalaran to Icecrown and Shalozar Basin, and the plane used in Shalozar Basin after obtaining Cold Weather Flying have the player as a passenger, either simply riding in the object, or controlling some abilities but not the actual travel path. --Wige (T - C) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "Mountables" is apt enough to be useful without being wordy. I think the mountables category probably should be a subcat from objects, but many items in it should also be considered under "mount", "quest item" etc. "Vehicle-based UI" is pretty much what Vehicles (mechanic) covers currently. You would prefer the name changed?

I'd be hard pressed, Wige, to include the Dalaran-Sholazar Basin plane ride in this category, as it does not offer you the vehicle UI. (I had termed that type of thing a Tour.)

Another thought: "Vehicle Passenger" is different from "Mountable". For instance, the Wintergrasp Siege Engine has two "Mountables" positions (driver, gunner), and two passenger positions. The Mechano-hog has one passenger position. Passengers, in this distinction, have only a minimal UI (leave vehicle).

And yet another: The Karazhan Chess game event, and the Blade's Edge Transporter event. Anyone know if they've been rewritten to use the vehicle UI? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the tours. I was probably thinking of the flight after the Cold Weather Flying, where you are just a passenger in the vehicle but have access to the vehicle UI. There is also the Thrusting Hodir's Spear quest - when you attack the dragon you are using the vehicle UI, although you are not exactly a passenger in a vehicle. There are a few others in the opening quest chain for Sons of Hodir that have a similar mechanic. However, they do still follow the spirit of being "mountable" so the name would apply.

As far as vehicle passenger, in the case of the seige engine and the Mechano-hog passengers, would the distinction matter, since the object still has a driver who has a full UI? I know there are some mountables that have a very minimal UI (looking at Bartender, it seems that there is a vehicle bar with three slots that can be used in place of the full vehicle UI - most commonly seen when in a passenger slot) and an NPC driver, but should a distinction be made for them in the category? I guess what I am getting at is, would subdividing the category based on how controllable the object is or which UI modification it triggers be useful, or just confuse readers? Or would we actually want everything to be in subcategories: siege engines, cannons, dragons, etc.? --Wige (T - C) 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think subdividing would probably not be a really great idea. I just did one of the Storm Peaks quests where I had the passenger interface, but that part of the quest involved you fighting off iron dwarves that leapt on the plane in-flight. Yet another edge case. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)