Talk:Treasure Hunting

I know that it has been this way for a long time so people will say "why change it", but why are tmaps listed as tiers? Everywhere else on the wiki "tiers" has a very different meaning. The inclusion of "tiers" on the tmaps page seems superfluous and potentially misleading. The box at the top of the page could (and should imo) read something along the lines of:

6.1 Special event items

6.2 Crumbling (high end raid) [or an actual tier range]

6.3 Extremely difficult (middle raid) [or an actual tier range]

6.4 Very difficult (low end raid) [or an actual tier range]

6.5 Difficult (55+)

6.6 Moderate (55+)

6.7 Easy (55+)

6.8 Very easy (55+)

6.9 Simple (50-59)

6.10 Simple (40-49)

6.11 Simple (30-39)

6.12 Simple (20-29)

No important information is lost and possible confusion is avoided with how "tier" is used everywhere else on the wiki. The "Map Type" section would also need to be cleaned up more than it already does concerning tier ranges- I mean how weird is it that a "tier 11 map" is done by a "tier 9-10 raid force"? I am more than willing to do the editing, just wanted to see if anyone knew of a reason why this change should not be made other than laziness, indifference, or standing on tradition. -- Folex

I approve of this change. Honestly this is something I've been meaning to change myself but just haven't gotten around to. I agree that using tier here just confuses things. I also have been meaning to create event pages (so t-map NPCs/loot can have better homes) for each type of t-map -- but that's another thing.

- Haenir (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2015 (EST)

p.s. it helps if you sign your talk posts (use four ~ in a row).

The reason I've felt that we've kept this system was that it is an absolute measure in the sense of progressively harder treasure map encounters, versus the relative and arbitrary tier system. I think that the use of the term 'tier' is the problem here and the scaling is fine as is. I would advocate changing the labels, but not assigning the maps levels tied to the tier system or party level. Marthog (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2015 (EST)

The scaling of maps is patently obvious in the simple map level ranges and Likert names of VE-VD. Though Simple 50s tmaps are, from my experience, more difficult than VE and possibly E tmaps so maybe that information should be included.

EDITS: removed the term "tier" from the page both in the confusing context of the maps and under the "map types" section discussing difficulty; cleaned up some of the language, though not all of it b/c writing style is subjective; added a few useful pieces of information about shovels, rogues, and pet guarding.

I do not think any useful information was removed while potential confusion with raid tiers was eliminated and some internal conflicts were corrected (specifically ED v. Crumbling difficulty). I think sections 1-5 could stand to be streamlined, but did not want do two rewrites in a single step. Feedback, corrections, and long winded angry rants are always welcome. Folex (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2015 (EST)

I just noticed that items which drop from tmaps have tierXX listed under their source. I had forgotten that this was a major motivator to change the silly tier system because "Source Treasure Hunting (Tier 9)" just meant I would have to click back to the tmap page to see which map type was "tier 9". Is there a way to change this en masse or do I have a lot of grunt force editing in my future? Folex (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2015 (EST)

It can be done as a template update -- so yeah en masse is possible. Haenir (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2015 (EST)

Wrangling with the template still -- How's this for a better way to view loot from T-Maps: Crumbling Treasure Map (Event)? Haenir (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2015 (EST)