Online talk:Imperial City

DLC Info

Personally I would say it's probably not necessary, as it would most likely result in duplication of information, but I was just wondering whether or not we would be having two separate "Imperial City" pages; one for the "DLC Pack" and one for the "Location". Since all of the DLC content is within the location, it seems redundant. --Enodoc (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed. However, the DLC pack already has its own entry on Online:Crown Store, and any other information can either be found here or on Online:Patch. Maybe in the future an actual DLC page will be needed, but for now I don't see the need. —Legoless (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK cool. I think we mentioned this before, but would it be a good idea to have an IC-specific instance of {{Mod Header}}? That way, we could easily identify something that is directly (individually) from the Crown Store as opposed to something that is from a Crown Store Game Pack. As a quick design, I was thinking something like this for Imperial City:

Enodoc (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We certainly could, but I still prefer labelling all Crown pages identically, since it matches how the content is (currently) displayed in-game. A header linking to the Crown Store is also probably more appropriate than linking to the place page. Labelling DLC content also won't be as big of a deal for ESO as it was for the other games, since it seems a lot of the new items can be traded to non-DLC players. —Legoless (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah true, but I was thinking in terms of quests and the like. I think it would be beneficial to clearly indicate that, say, the quest "Stolen Relics", the location "White-Gold Tower", and the enemy "Lady of the Deep" are part of the Imperial City pack, and not any other Crown Store pack. --Enodoc (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It would match how we've done it in the past, but is it necessary? After all, readers would be unlikely to be looking at enemy pages unless they encountered it in-game or followed a link from an IC-specific place/quest page. Place pages will all link back here, and quest pages could just as easily use something similar to the "mod" param from {{Quest Header}}. Personally I think the mod header is better utilised as a way of denoting a paywall, but a couple other opinions would be useful. —Legoless (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we go to CP? --Enodoc (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I bumped this discussion. —Legoless (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rotation of IC + main bridge note

In the Three Fates Cinematic Trailer Supercut (timestamp 12:40), it appears as if the Imperial Bridge is coming out of the Talos Plaza/Nobles District, which would imply the Imperial Bridge is coming out of the West of the Imperial City, like Oblivion, but in the actual game of ESO, the Imperial Bridge comes out of the South of the City.

Because of the rotation of the City in ESO, it appears as if the bridge (coming out of the South of the City) leads straight into one of the watchtowers of the outer wall.

It also appears as if the Waterfront District has swapped places with the Prison District. In the bottom of the video, the left protruding district, which should be the Waterfront District, appears closer to the center part of the city than it should, whereas at the top-right of the video, the Prison District appears too far away from the center part of the city, whereas it should be closer, like the Arcane University in the bottom-right of the video. --Rezalon (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The southern bridge in-game in ESO doesn't touch the walls, so it won't lead straight into a watchtower. Looking at the map, the bridge ends right on the other side of the lake, where a track leads towards the path between the Arcane University and (what should be) the Arboretum. I agree that the Waterfront in the trailer is incorrect. --Enodoc (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Orientation of the Imperial City Map and Describing the Location of Districts

When I look at the Imperial City Map shown on this page, first, none of the districts are labeled and there is no "key" to shown what the various contents of each district signify.

What I see is basically a hexagon. If North is the top of the map, then there are three districts in the northern half and three districts in the southern half. So beginning at "the top" of the hexagon, the order of the districts, proceeding clockwise, would be: The Northern District, the Northeastern District, the Southeastern District, the Southern District, the Southwestern District, and the Northwestern District.

The directions given in the descriptions of the districts on the page, however, turn the hexagon 90 degrees (whether clockwise or counterclockwise is unclear). This is implied in referring to two districts (1) as the Eastern District, presumably flanked by the Northeastern and Southeastern districts, respectively, and (2) as the Western District, presumably flanked by the Northwestern and Southwestern districts, respectively.

Which is to say, without any labels for directions in the map, the current referral to the districts by direction from the Center does not make any sense. I cannot match the given location of each one to what I see on the map. Perhaps what is in the Western district is actually in the Northern district and what is in the Eastern District is in the Southern district instead. Or perhaps not.

For what it is worth, I have played dozens of games which used a hexagonal pattern for subdividing a surface, such as a battlefield. The only game that I've played with a computer which does this is Sid Meier's Civilization series. So I do not understand how the person who wrote the page got everything so scrambled. — Unsigned comment by 24.250.198.111 (talk) at 21:39 on 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted here, the districts are incorrectly oriented in ESO. Presumably, that's where the current directional info comes from. Might be worth changing for clarity's sake though, since it seems like this bug isn't getting addressed any time soon. —Legoless (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The directional info on the pages is ignoring the fact that the map is wrong. --Enodoc (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)