Talk:Named item sets

All items that can comprise a Legendary Adherent of the Mists set have gone back to state the set is a Profane bonus. They no longer say it’s an Artifact bonus. Screenshots of the items will need to be uploaded to replace the current ones. &rArr; Arkat (Contribs • Message • Email ) 23:14, September 9, 2021 (EDT)

MotU Sets
Can someone confirm if the Docent Upgrades are actually part of the Sets? I have commented them out for now, they can be fully deleted or re-added when confirmed.

--Snake 6/7/12

Armour Descriptions
Pre-U14 describing armour as Full Plate +6 made sense, we knew it had AC14. Since U14 we have variable armours which can all be described as 'full plate' but which have different base ACs.

eg Purple Dragon Armour was described as "Full Plate +6" which gives the impression that its AC bonus is only 14, when it is much higher.

It seems to make more sense now to describe armour as Heavy, Medium or Light (which allows readers to work out the PRR bonus they will get) and specifically include the total AC bonus and Max Dex Bonus. At a glance readers can tell how good the armour is.

--Snake 6/7/12

Lorikk set devotion
''note that while similar to Improved Devotion VIII, there is a key distinction in that Devotion increases the effectiveness of healing spells and will also affect action points in Cleric Life Magic, Paladin Devotion, etc, where as Lorikk's will NOT! The bonus granted by Lorikk is strictly worse than Improved Devotion VIII because it increases damage, not effectiveness.'' 68.54.7.39
 * not sure what this guy is trying to say. isnt Lorikk set identical to Devotion item enchantments? --yoko5000 02:41, December 24, 2010 (EST)

The tooltip on the set bonus states increses the damage with 6th and lower spells, but it also increases the effects of healing. Spirit
 * I don't understand what this means. Heal (spell) is a level 6 spell, so should be boosted as the tooltip says. 'Damage' on spell-boosting effects always applies to positive-energy ('healing') type spells too. Backley 09:57, January 15, 2011 (EST)

Shintao Monk set
A shintao 3 monk wearing this set will have a second set bonus icon on his buffs list which reads (sic):

''Set Bonus

''This set item bonus will grant %15 additional melee threat.

The edit on 05:25, July 16, 2011 says that this is an undocumented set bonus. Is there any evidence that this set bonus does or does not apply? Peng 15:08, July 27, 2011 (EDT)

Esoteric Initiate set
Despite what it says in the tooltip for the set bonus, the Legendary set, in fact, grants +4 to WIS, INT, and CHA, not +3.

&rArr; Arkat (Contribs • Message • Email ) 23:56, September 14, 2019 (EDT)

U47 Sets
How are we going to insert the U47 sets? They span different previous update material and some are related to previous sets, ie: Artificer/Cannith sets. Should we expand the previous set entries, or create a whole new U47 sets wiki-table? &rArr; GMTrojan (Contribs • Message • Email )

Wrath of Sora Kell
Needs a lot of updating for the u49

Data consolidation?
Currently the information for the sets lies in three places: The Named item sets template, this page and any individual set pages. There has been a discussion in User talk:Cru121 on how to consolidate the data in one place and use DPL and transclusion to show the data in many places. The choices are as follows:
 * 1) Keep the data in the Named item sets template. This has the upside that we don't need to use any DPL to get the data. Another upside is that this page remains about the same. The downside is that people rarely edit templates to add or change information and thus the template will likely be poorly maintained. Another downside is that this page and any individual pages still need to call the template for each template to display it which is a form of data duplication.
 * 2) Move the data in this page by encapsulating each set description in a template for DPL to find it. This has the upside that we keep the current page about the same (except for some normalizations in how each description is displayed). The downside is that the page is big and will become complicated (addition of a template around each description) and editors do not like to edit big pages. Another downside is that each individual page still needs to call the template to display the effect which is a form of data duplication.
 * 3) Move the data in individual pages and encapsulating it in a template for DPL to find it. This has the upside that each set has its own page and thus easy to edit. The downside is that this page will need to be created automatically and some information may be lost (like general instructions on specific sets). Another downside is that editors may not know that they need to create individual pages in order to update this page.
 * 4) The same as number 3, except instead of replacing this page for an automatically generated list, we call the template for each effect to display it. This has the upside of number 3 as well as the upside of this page remaining about the same. It doesn't have the downside of number 3 that it's hard for the editors to know where to edit because they'll add the template to this page and the template will prompt them to create the page. The downside is that this page needs to call the template for each effect to display it which is a form of data duplication.

This discussion may be used as a reference for future data consolidations. We need some opinions and votes. Thank you.

&rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:22, August 24, 2021 (EDT)

Opinions
&rArr; SisAmethyst (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:07, August 24, 2021 (EDT) Answers to the questions: &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 02:18, August 25, 2021 (EDT)
 * Some random thoughts and questions from me on this:
 * First, a question, just to be sure, when we talk about named items set, are we talking about a named set group like 'Ravenloft Item Sets', or are we talking about one particular set like 'Beacon of Magic Set (Heroic)'? I assume the latter.
 * Secondly, how often do we foresee that the named item set template needs to be updated? As far as I can see almost every major update, which sounds like quite some effort.
 * Thoughts:
 * Sure as an editor it's nice to directly use to get my information but the template itself seems to be cluttered and difficult to edit or search through. Additionally, the data/code in this template has to be synchronized with the textual information at other places like the dedicated categories. It might be nice to be able to see the list of all named items in one big blob, but I would assume that in most cases I am interested in one particular set/group. After all once a named item set is established it rarely changes or if it changes usually the full set or group changes.
 * Likewise, if something changes I probably have to update the full group but this information is a bit lost in this template.
 * I would also argue that if a page/template/category is smaller then it is easier to be reused and more simple to be fixed/adapted in case of an error. KISS keep it small & simple.
 * Last but not least while it might be difficult for editors to edit individual pages, I think that is more a question of documentation, training, or support (eg add a [edit] button like on the top of this section that actually links to the template for edits).
 * Can't we break the named item sets up into their respective group (eg. Ravenloft Item Sets) and then have for each of those groups their own subset? If I understand this right that would be a bit like #4? I know it was said in the other discussion they might span across multiple packs, but I think that is rather an exception. We could group them by the existing 25 we have. Then having one entry page like this, but essentially the data presented in the tables of each group are automatically pulled and displayed based on the sub-pages and be reusable for the pop-ups.
 * For me the maintenance effort of clearly speaks against option #1, but undecided on the others yet
 * We are talking about one particular set. The latter.
 * The functionality of will not change much. In all 4 choices, you will still be able to use this template to get the pop-up with the information. The debate point is on where the template gets its information from.
 * I would argue that a smaller page is not easier to be fixed/adapted than a large page. But that is exactly the point of contention and I've already made my vote.
 * We can break the big page into group pages, yes. This seems like a solution between #2 and #3. The question is: Are those sub-pages populated automatically from individual pages or do those sub-pages contain the source information? If the former, then you want #3. If the latter, you want #2. In either case, this means some extra maintenance: Creating the sub-pages (for #3), creating the sub-pages for each new set and linking them to the main page (for #2).
 * I'll put you down for "not 1" for the moment.


 * Can we find a way to include the item or set minimum level on this page, or on whatever page is eventually used? There is currently no simple way to find "level 20 sets". A solution could be as much as adding a category of sets by level, or as simple as including (ML5) in the set name. &rArr; Nanocephalic (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:53, September 14, 2021 (EDT)
 * The problem I see with minimum level is that it may change in the future as not all items of the set are guaranteed to have the same ML. Let's say for example that you want to equip a set that gives bonuses for 2 items and 3 items. The 2 items are low level like 15 and then there is a level 20 item that activates the 3 item bonus. Now you may say that no set currently does this, but it could. If we are willing to ignore that problem and risk it coming to bite us in the ass in the future (kind of like the Slaver items can be equipped in 2 inventory slots and the template we have wasn't designed to facilitate that), then we could slap the ML in the definition of the set or get the ML of one of the items and display that. If we are not willing to ignore that problem, the solution is extremely problematic for various complicated reasons and even then you may not even have a solution as the minimum level calculated by using a longsword may not be the same if the user wanted to use a higher level maul. My opinion is to slap the ML in the definition, but I had to lay out the potential problems. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 02:56, September 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * The Gem of Many Facets already means that quite a few sets have two different item levels attached to them. The current solution is to ignore the problem outright but I agree that we need to find a better solution. What about including the ML for each item in the item's table element when displaying sets?
 * I could see using . Or use the earliest level when you can benefit from the set bonus. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:48, September 16, 2021 (EDT)


 * A first working draft of the templates for solutions 2-4 are in my sandbox: User:Faltout/SandBox/Named item set definition to define a set (used once anywhere in the namespaces Main, Category, Item) and User:Faltout/SandBox/Named item sets to display a set by getting the data from the definition (wherever it is in the namespaces Main, Category, Item). Both templates use a common template to display the set info User:Faltout/SandBox/Named item set display which can display the set as a "tablerow", "page" or "popup". The page format lists the items by type and I had something similar for the tablerow format, but it required too many DPL calls which are expensive to use in the same page. Thus, for the tablerow format, I switched to using a table for the items with the type and ML in it which requires only one DPL call. Please register some votes so we can go ahead with the switch as the page keeps getting updated using the old format. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 02:53, September 20, 2021 (EDT)


 * I guess I'll vote for 3 then. Keep data in individual pages and pull everything from there. Kinda how we store items. Just worried about the migration; it looks like a lot of work to create all those pages. Oh and I don't like the nested table visually - but I do agree it's very functional. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:51, September 20, 2021 (EDT)

Votes

 * 3 &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:51, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
 * 2 &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:22, August 24, 2021 (EDT)
 * not 1 &rArr; SisAmethyst (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:07, August 24, 2021 (EDT)

Template:Item
&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:32, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
 * It looks like there are a lot of unwanted: "Template:Item" and "Template:Anchor" links appearing upon the: Named item sets Page, instead of descriptions, starting about halfway down...


 * I probably broke some stuff :/ Gonna check it out. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:25, September 2, 2021 (EDT)


 * Probably wasn't my fault after all. &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:43, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
 * It's all the effect pop-ups that are doing this. I'll remove the item effects from some of the sets to reduce the template include size. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:31, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
 * I removed the Chronoscope's item descriptions. Reduced the include size by about 150,000 characters. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:37, September 2, 2021 (EDT)