Category talk:Regional Quests

Jump to: navigation, search

Lone-lands or Lone-Lands? DancesInTrees 08:32, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

adding Dunland/Isengard

As a newb here, not sure how to add more to the table. Edit gives just meta-items it seems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lanpharn (Contribs • User Talk) at 2011-11-19T23:15:35.

I've added the rows in the table. For now, only the alphabetical listings are available. When we get more of the quest pages written up, someone will do the red-linked pages by gathering together all the quest lists in one place. Right now, they are found on the area pages, e.g. Trum Dreng. RingTailCat (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (EST)

added Mordor/Gorgoroth section

I've added the section for the first existing part of the Mordor expansion, Gorgoroth. Only I am a bit confused by the doubling of the link in 'Quests' and 'Chains'. Seems that is an old concept and does not apply anymore? - Chirp (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't done a lot with quests on the LOTRO-wiki, but I do have a lot of experience with how quest design in the game (been playing since launch). As I understand it, the Quests category should include all quests that take place in the region. The Chains category should include an overview of all quest chains in that region: a chain is basically a group of quests that are tied together in some way or another (for instance, because they're all needed to complete a deed, or because they need to be completed in sequential order). Each quest chain has its own category, and these categories go into the Chains category. At least, that's how it was organized originally.
It looks like the Chains category wasn't updated/created anymore after a certain point in LOTRO-wiki's history. I suspect it has something to do with how quests have evolved in the game. In some regions, such as Dunland, *all* quests are chained. There are almost none that you can do / pickup without prerequisites. I do kind of like the Chains category, because it's more insightful than a category with just all the quests there are.
As I said, I haven't dabbled with quests much in the past, so I don't have much to say about it. But if nobody else chimes in, I'm happy to think along about the categories if you want. Really awesome that you're working on the Mordor ones! --Ravanel (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, does it make sense at all to have sub sections like March of the King and Mordor? I suggest to remove both headers, or else make headers based on regions like elsewhere, not on update names or expansions. The quest category hierarchy seems to be muddled too at least for the Gorgoroth/Mordor quests. I don't grok it yet, so don't dare to mess it with more atm. Chirp (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree the sub sections seem a bit arbitrary. If we want to have sub sections like that (not necessarily a bad thing, you do get a bit more of an overview because it's a loooong list), I would rather use "Eriador", "Rhovanion", "Gondor" and "Mordor". Those are on the same level lore-wise, so it makes more sense. Perhaps look up in the history who added it and send them a message (if they're still actively contributing?). Otherwise go for it. :) --Ravanel (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I added subheadings to harmonize with how the locations are divided in the deed log. The previously added subheading of "March of the King" no longer made sense once The Wastes was added on the end. Of course, the deed log is a separate thing from the quest log, but since the list is getting so long it makes sense to me to add subheadings. One disadvantage is that the quests are no longer strictly ordered by level. If it is desirable to differentiate the "March of the King" quests, I would suggest putting the phrase "March of the King" in the left column and then indenting or bulleting the next 4 regions that belong to that subgroup. For consistency, a similar format would need to be applied to the 3 Dunland quest groups; and the 2 W. Rohan quest groups. I certainly won't be offended if others want to change or revert it.--Thorwynn (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Really like what it looks like now, makes more sense to me. :) --Ravanel (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)