Forums: Village pump → Neutral Faction Icons
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

I'm pretty sure we discussed this before, but it has been a few years I believe.

Given some additions and recent changes, which has already received reverts, do we as a whole want this to continue with neutral factions, only with major neutral factions, or just plain reverted and stick to using the neutral Neutral icon? Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 18:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that we should stick with the neutral icon unless there's two factions directly opposed to one another such as the Aldor and Scryers, since the icon's purpose is to tell at a glance which faction can take their quests. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Kirin Tor icon in quests doesn't really say anything in gameplay terms (unlike the Aldor and Scryers icon) so I agree with Zeratul. Mordecay (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The NPC boilerplate has, far back as I can recall, always given three options for the faction parameter: Alliance, Horde, and Neutral. I agreed (and still do) with that because it is not for the purpose of lore, but, for the lack of a better term, meta purposes. Can an Alliance player interact with a Horde NPC? No. Does a Neutral NPC interact with players of both factions? Yes. Inserting a reputation / lore faction in place of that doesn't tell me, as a player, anything. If nothing else, it simply serves to muddle the differences between it and the affiliation / repfaction fields. We don't need the confusion. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 19:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with all the above comments. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with DarkTZeratul and company's point of view. Having a Kirin Tor icon doesn't help, indeed if we make a Kirin Tor icon, we have to creat a Ebon Blade one, Wyrmrest Temple one, etc etc... and that would be a useless work.
The current ones are useful:
Neutral -> you can interact with them whatever your faction is
Mob -> you can't interact with them whatever your faction is
Alliance -> you can interact with them if you choose the Alliance
Horde -> you can interact with them if you choose the Horde
Aldor -> you can interact with them if you choose the Aldor
Scryers -> you can interact with them if you choose the Scryers
MAYBE, the only "new" ones that I can accept are Oracles and Frenzyheart Tribe, but they are pointless in the lore and gameplay (they don't have even a tabard! xD) --Kandooww ^^ (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreeing with the above comments. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see where everyone is coming from gameplay-wise, though personally I think the newer icons look much better than everyone just using the sword one. ReignTG (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of the Aldor and Scryers icons was because your choice would have made you a target on the other's territory. Example: If I'm Aldor and go to Scryer's Tier, I will be attacked. So the main purpose of this is to see how your choice affects your outcomes. Iron Horde members will still look at you funny without any choice being taken. As for the Kirin Tor, it is not so clear if you chose Horde. The way to make it work is this, leave those characters from previous expansions(before Legion) like Archmage Lan'dalock as Alliance. Since he has not appeared in Legion yet. As for those who do appear in Legion, leave them a Neutral icon. There is no need for a Kirin Tor symbol. Heck, the Frenzyheart Tribe and Oracles deserve more this distinction than the Kirin Tor.Shammiesgun (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that less would be better.--SWM2448 23:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree for the icons to not be precise (meaning not really necessary unless it's a absolute must). -- Darksora110 (talk) 5:25, 3 March 2016
The faction icon of the kirin tor it's important, because the influence of the kirin tor transcends the expansion in which was added (wowlk) to other expansions (mop, wod and legion) and some books (Tides of War), for this reason is one of the factions most important of the lore of wow, unlike other factions (Aldor, Scryers) who do not have the same level of lore. SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The great influence of the kirin tor it's represented by it's new leader in legion : "He knows that the combined forces of the greatest champions of Azeroth are necessary to succeed, even as dissenting voices speak against a coalition and risk ultimate destruction by the demons". I would like suggest, keep the members of the kirin tor before legion with the neutral faction icon Neutral, and, in legion and other future expansions with the faction icon of the Kirin Tor Kirin Tor. SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
and use the icon of combat for "evil factions " and the neutral icon for the real neutral factions SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I wish {{neutral}} would go away. Use Alliance and Horde and Combat as those have a gameplay purpose, but neutral is the default state and generally pointless. Just like how most of our articles still have {{stub}} on them, the overuse of neutral has really bled any meaning away from both and people just ignore it.
Articles about gameplay topics should have gameplay-oriented infoboxes. You can't go hostile with the Kirin Tor. {{FactionIcon|<Aldor>}} and Scryer have use for the very limited places where there's a gameplay reason for them to be specifically called out, but that's about it.
Part of me also really wants icons in the |above= section of infoboxes in general to go away as well. That's been a hack for a decade now. My preference would be to use something like background images (as in my sandbox) instead. --k_d3 00:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually like how that looks with the half visible Alliance/Horde images in the headers and I'm fine with completely removing the neutral icons from infoboxes since having nothing there means the same thing really. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how the Kirin Tor trying to get everyone to stop fighting is a valid reason to put their icon in their infoboxes, for precisely the same reason I don't see it as a valid reason to put the Wyrmrest Accord, Argent Crusade, or Earthen Ring icons into infoboxes: it's supposed to be a gameplay signifier, and for all intents and purposes there's no difference between Kirin Tor and Neutral (or, as kd3 suggested, no icon at all). I ESPECIALLY think it's a terrible idea to only use it for post-Legion Kirin Tor articles, because that lacks consistency and would only result in confusion.
On another note, I second Coobra about kd3's sandboxed background images. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It's absurd to put icons for each faction, the kirin tor has at least an own capital city SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the kirin tor icon belongs in the infoboxes, as that adds nothing not normally signified by the "affiliations" line. Even if I think the Icon is a "good looking" one, it would only create more work, as per that logic, most other factions would have to have custom icons added aswell. Seeing as how the Frenzyheart Tribe and the Oracles are opposed in the same way that Aldor and Scryers are, by the logic in place for having icons for those, the Sholazar factions should have icons aswell. Seeing as how they don't have tabards though, that might be a moot point. I don't know if I agree with the idea of completely removing the infobox icons. The neutral one, is a bit of a bother however, since the infobox-neutral isn't directly linked to the reputation-neutral. While I like having the Alliance and Horde icons in the infoboxes as they are, I'm not opposed to a change either. At first glance I'm not too keen on Kd3's previewed suggestion, but it might just be a matter of getting used to it. PeterWind (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be best to choose some ideas that would best solve this problem and vote for whether one we'd like and believe would be best. — SurafbrovWowpedia's wiki representative T / C 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasting here what I posted on Mordecay's talk page:

"The faction field is for the purpose of game play, not lore. Marking him as Alliance gives the impression that only Alliance characters can interact with him, which would be very inaccurate and only confuse visitors to his article page."

Context: I noticed Mordecay having changed Zooti Fizzlefury's faction field to Alliance, so I changed it back to Neutral with a note. Mordecay later reverted my edit.

I'm bringing it up here since it seems to me that it's directly relevant to this matter. So with all this in mind, can the admins weigh in again? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Responding here. Modera's and Archmage Elandra's icon was changed back during WoD's course. Wouldn't the reaction field better clarify interaction? Oh I see... went through the discussion here and it should be gameplay > lore as you said :-( Mordecay (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently, there are certain NPCs that are only attackable for one faction, while friendly or neutral (not attackable) to the other, without strictly being a part of either faction. Dalaran Shield Guard being one such example. Currently the combat icon is used even though this is only true for horde players. Should that be changed or is it fine as is? PeterWind (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In that particular case, I'd tag the Dalaran Shield Guards as Alliance and with Alliance Horde for the aggro value. Xporc (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was leaning towards that idea aswell, even if it is not completely acurate, I think it's still better than using the combat symbol, as an Alliance player seeing the combat symbol might expect to be able to attack the mob/NPC in question. On the other hand leaving the combat symbol there and just setting the aggro to Alliance Horde is also an option.
On a slightly related note. Faction NPCs with the main function as quest objective for the opposing faction, are often friendly, even if they can't be interacted with. It's not something I've dealt much with myself, but I've seen those pages under both Mobs, NPCs and sometimes both. The mob article broaches this subject but doesn't, as far as I can see, give a direct answer to this. PeterWind (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)