Talk:Location

Templates for locations

Right now there's no fixed template for the various locations. I'm proposing the following:

1) Location description, including how players gain access to the location. Title: Location Name

2) List of shops available if any. Title: Shops available

3) List of mice that can be found and the possible drops they might have. Title: Mice that roam "location name'

The travel cost link should be moved to the main Locations page to avoid duplicating the links on every location.

-- Grexx 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My 'template' for locations can be found here (link in case changes are made to the page) --Peter888 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions

It would be nice if someone added a note about the requirements to travel to certain locations, such as needing the Furoma Map Stitch to get into the Pagoda areas. I can do it if no one else gets to it first but I'm kinda busy for the next few days with work and the holidays. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• To this end, I've converted the info into a table with columns for minimum title and other other travel requirements. Please fill these ASAP if you can. Thanks! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Did it myself. :-) -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You're too quick for the rest of us... I just calculated every average travel cost in gold, since it's the primary requirement for travel. I don't think it's too confusing. :P Revengeance 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the work, but average costs are wildly different from actual costs in many cases. Instead, I revertd your additions and added a link to the travel page where users can see the exact costs (and also access Pooflinger's Travel Planner). Hope this doesn't offend! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course not. Most people probably wouldn't have understood it, anyway. Revengeance 04:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Just went back and removed the duplicate links to Furoma Map Stitch, since it was lost with the revert. Would it make more sense if the locations in the table were in bold and not the regions, considering the table is alphabetized by them and they're the main focus of the article in the first place? Revengeance 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
          • IMHO, having a column in bold int he middle of the table would look odd. I wouldn't have a problem with de-bolding the regions, however. I think it's fine as-is, but that's just one guy's opinion. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, we could switch the regions and locations columns around so the locations are first, of course. Revengeance 18:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Actually, the regions column would probably have to be the last column, considering its rows would break the information flow. Revengeance 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Now that I would oppose. Messing up the hierarchical order just to be able to bold the locations would be silly. Is there a problem with it as is? Is anyone not going to be able to easily find the location they're looking for? It's a handful of locations, not the New York City phone book. Seems like a solution in need of a problem IMHO. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Catacombs

I don't see why someone reverted my edit for a new location as there is enough evidence for it to be within the Burroughs location:

• We already know the minimum title requirement is Legendary because the Cartographer's description states it.
• If you look at the new mice, they have a population in the Burroughs, something like 'Dwindling' or 'Scarce' instead of 'Hardly Existent' if the location were in another region.

• 52 - Dwindling
• 53 - Scarce
• 54 - Dwindling
• 55 - Scarce
• 56 - Scarce

What else could the Devs be testing if it's not the Catacombs? (yet it requires new mice, a description change for Coal and the Cartgrapher, Arcane, and Forgotten) --Peter888 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because it's not in the game yet. When it is, put it in. Until then, this should be a reference site based on established facts, not conjecture and speculation on "what else could the Devs be testing". As we all know, things could change dramatically between now and the actual release. And really, if it's not in the game then there is absolutely no margin in reporting it here. What purpose does it serve beyond furthering pointless speculation? I just don't get the apparently uncontrollable need for some people (generally speaking, not directed specifically at Peter888) to post unofficial information here just because they can. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)