Talk:Rogue

Combo
Edited a part about the combo mechanic: 'summoning a minion or playing a spell' -> 'playing a card'. Did so because summoning a minion doesn't mean playing it from the hand and summoning doesn't trigger combos, playing the minion does. Moreover, weapon cards also trigger combos.
 * Good edit, thanks. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Layout change
The change made earlier today by 107.194.207.13 (placing the level UNDER the image of the card gained instead of above it, on this page and the page for priest) makes this page inconsistent with the pages for other classes, and even introduces an inconsistency on this page between levels 1-10 and levels 11-60. However, looking at the result I feel that the change is indeed an improvement. There appears to be less space between text and image if the text is below the card, making it less likely to get confused when reading the table.

My proposal is to NOT undo this change, but instead make it consistent across all classes, and for both the 1-10 and 11-60 sections. Comments?

-- BigHugger (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. IIRC we have had a discussion on formatting these before (they used to be in rigid tables) and never loved the results; to some degree level-first-then-card makes more logical sense but that damn space on top of cards... So yeah go for it if you like it.&#32;- jerodast (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, they still are in rigid tables, just invisible ones, go figure. Well anyway, it used to be even uglier is my point :P&#32;- jerodast (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I now see there's an alternative. Take a look at the Druid, Hunter, Mage, and Warrior pages. Looks similar, but the source is very different. Benefit is that the width changes with the window size, unlike the fixed width of the table used here and for the remaining classes.
 * Any reason not to change Rogue, Paladin, Priest, Shaman, and Warlock from a fixed table to a list of "Card Div" templates? -- BigHugger (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could definitely use that format on the others. Taohinton must have gotten interrupted before converting them all.


 * I actually just found I still have the page where I was playing around with exactly this type of thing back when we were first talking about it: User:Jerodast/Table Experiment. Just added a few different options at the top, experimenting with with transparent rounded shading behind each one to help define the connection between the card and its level. This could allow us to put the label on top without it being unclear. What do you think?&#32;- jerodast (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My personal favorite of your attempts is the one marked as "Text on bottom; padding bottom only". For me, text below the cards feels more natural than text above the card, but the shaded area around card+text really helps.
 * My second choice if majority prefers to have text above card is the "Text on top; relative positioning to push it into image; no padding" and then specifically the Level 23/25 version. For the other versions in that section, the text feels too high or too far pushed into the card.
 * You mention making a template for the formatting. I don't know how that would work, but if you can make the template but lack the time to change all the pages, I can take care of the latter. (If you provide me with an example of how the pages should look). -- BigHugger (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah the "pushed" text is actually sitting on top (or under? not sure) the transparent section of the card image, which browsers won't do on their own; I was just experimenting with the range of options knowing some of them were clearly not great :). I figured this could "fix" the weird spacing at the top of the images, but if nobody cares about it being on top then not doing that is simpler and probably less likely to be screwed up by alternate browsers. There's a certain natural flow of "hit the level, then earn the card" to the top-text version, but given how many captioned images we have on the site, the bottom-text version feels natural too.


 * Glad you like the shading. To implement it I will probably just modify the template already in use on Mage, Druid, etc. If you just want to convert all the pages to use that as you'd suggested earlier, that's probably the easiest way to go. And you won't have to wait for me to do anything. I'm actually still not sure about the shading - there are certain accessibility concerns (high contrast displays, mobile browsers, etc) whenever you start messing with colors but I guess it's faint enough it shouldn't break anything. Unless there's a browser that doesn't support transparency well...sigh, web development is a pain :)&#32;- jerodast (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I finished the changes for the Level 2-10 section on all classes. No time now to do the Level 11-60 part as well; I'll pick that up later. -- BigHugger (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)