Template talk:Bind

Barely see the use for this. Might want to change it to like: BTABound to Account

Oh and what is it with the 1-5 as default\fallback text value on all your switches Neouni 11:36, March 22, 2011 (EDT)

Oh and what is it with the 1-5 as default\fallback text value on all your switches??

I did a lot of research of other templates to figure out how to make them...It was what I found as the default on a lot of them... 1-(Total # of list items)→ ShoeMaker 11:50, March 22, 2011 (EDT)

1-5 is actually the text that will display when no value is not defined in the list,

so instead use something useful like explaining what options the user has if he made an error.

Usually defaults are defined by→ Neouni 12:39, March 22, 2011 (EDT)

Actually the width of the window comes from Long popup

Use Popup instead if you want a smaller window. And this template only seems to repeat itself and thus the obvious ? Neouni 22:00, March 22, 2011 (EDT)

Make "Exclusive" visible at a glance

Add information that the item is exclusive available at a glance (i.e. not in popup). Something like "Bound to Account on Acquire; Exclusive". Fix usage of z flag. Thanks! → --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 08:48, April 23, 2013 (EDT)

A semi-colon seemed to break the popup, not sure why. I've added it with a comma for now until I can figure out why semi-colon didn't work. I might have to fix Template:Long popup.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 10:00, April 23, 2013 (EDT)

Peel exclusive from bind template

I would just like to point out that I don't think the bind template should handle whether an item is exclusive or not. The two properties have not really anything to do with each other. Items exist that are exclusive and not bound ( small ingredients bag), and there are items that are bound and not exclusive ( shard of power ).

I know I probably sound like a broken record by now, but this is another example of a template trying to do too much in my opinion.

I think what needs to happen is

1) exclusive template should be built

2) exclusive items transition to use exclusive template

3) exclusive logic pruned from bind template

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 19:32, April 23, 2013 (EDT)

Completely agree.

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 19:55, April 23, 2013 (EDT)

I disagree. All exclusive items have a bind status, even if it is Unbound, ExclusiveUnbound: This item is Unbound, and may take permanent damage.
This is an Exclusive item. You may only carry one at a time.. There is no need to make more templates to do what one template is already doing.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 20:51, April 23, 2013 (EDT)

I agree with Tech. Since the bind template can ignore the argument entirely (I believe, at least), it's really only an issue for the (very few) UNbound exclusive items. And really, all items should have the bind status listed, even if it's "Unbound" so it shouldn't even be an issue for those.

LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 05:25, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

I think you're missing the point, just because all items have a bind status does not mean that being exclusive has anything to do with being bound. All items equally have a base value ( or potentially a material, or durability ...), that does not mean that being exclusive should be part of any those templates. To me, adding exclusive to bind template is no more arbitrary than adding it to the base value / durability / material / ... template. I think it should be peeled out because it is unique, unless there is really a valid reason to marry it to bind status, which I haven't heard.

Side note, the "unbound, exclusive" declaration looks like : {{Bind|No||1}}. A blank argument has to be sent in for the "bind on equip / bind on aquire" status. That second value can not be ignored, it has to be put in as blank. Not that the extra blank really should have anything to do with the decision, it's not uncommon for templates to be passed / handle blank arguments(values). -Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 11:01, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

It can be done without the blank argument easily... {{Bind|No|3=1}} returns Unbound, ExclusiveUnbound: This item is Unbound, and may take permanent damage.
This is an Exclusive item. You may only carry one at a time.. I'm hoping this will end up being a moot point, but to be entirely honest, I think that bind status and exclusivity should be incorporated into the Named X templates (or Template:Named Item specifically which should replace all the others) of which this bind template wouldn't be needed at all anyways. I'm just too busy with RL and other stuff to work on that much right now. Still going through the "divorce" and it is nearing the end of the semester at school which is sucking up a large part of my time as well.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 12:25, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

But the "Exclusive" has the distinction of being on the same line as the boundness, unlike BV, durability, material, etc. The game marries them together. Bottom line: We already have it in the template. The template has been used on thousands of pages. That blank line's really only an issue on the VERY few exclusive unbound items (which are, what, medium bags? I honestly can't think of anything else that's exclusive and unbound).

LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 15:28, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

Bags, Cloak of Ice, Ring of Spell storing, ... all are items that are exclusive that have no bind status. That is enough evidence to me to (dis)prove that there is no inherent link between items in the game that are bound and items that are exclusive. One item was actually good enough for me to disprove, but since you are still not convinced, I provided three. If you still are not convinced, let me know a (realistic) number and I will try to find that many items.

My point remains : The exclusive status is distinct from bind status.

1) Just because every item can be bound or unbound is a poor reason to combine the two properties.

2) Just because it's been done in the past is also ( I believe ) a poor reason to combine the two properties.

I like the idea of updating the named item template to be smart enough to handle exclusive, I just don't think it should be combined with bind status.

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 17:54, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

Show me screen shots of items that do not have the exclusivity directly underneath bind status, or if there is no bind status, in the same position in the item description box where bind status goes. That is the point, they are connected in-game, and they should be here.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 19:04, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

What.... really? He just gave 3+ examples of items that have no bind status - there is absolutely nothing in game on the item about binding. And yet you're going to argue that because on items that are both bound and exclusive, exclusive happens to be after bound so they're linked? Wha?

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 19:46, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Not only on bound items, and you missed my point. Like I said earlier, there is no need to peel this out, when time would be better spent working on improving the Named X templates and eliminating this template all together.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 20:44, April 24, 2013 (EDT)

I never said that there was an "inherent link between" bound & exclusive. I merely said that there are an EXTREMELY few (and I could only think of one - well, four if you count all the bags separately, which, probably, yeah - offhand) where having them in the same line was in any way, shape, or form a real issue. And even in those few, it's not really much of an issue. Even if a few new ones pop up in U18, it won't really be much of an issue.

This is not the time to bring up this issue. Back when the template was being made and rolled out, sure. I would've agreed with you then. But now that it's already implemented, it's NOT AN ISSUE.

All the energy you've spent arguing about this... you could've bloody well done the templates yourself. And if you want to do the templates yourself and go through replacing things, knock yourself out. But it's not something that I feel should, in any way, shape, or form be any kind of priority... except for anybody who wants to make it a priority willing to do the work. Which, if that's you, is absolutely your right and more power to you.

I agree that going ahead into the future, they *should* be separate... but until and unless new templates (either new Named X templates or a new line on the current templates) show up... I'm not gonna waste one whit of energy on separating them out. If you want to, goferit.

LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 01:01, April 25, 2013 (EDT)

Template:Named Item

Apologies, Lord. When you stated "the game marries them together", I took that to mean that you were asserting that the game links the exclusive property with the bind property.

Irregardless, I agree that time would be better spent updating Template:Named Item, I'll try to put some effort in to getting that template ready for deployment. At first glance, though, it seems that the template relies on the bind template, so I have some questions before moving forward.

1) Tech, when you mention "eliminating this template altogether", what did you have in mind, that the bind logic be moved completely to named item template ?

2) What's left to do on the named item template? If you want to remove the dependence on bind template, do you also want to remove dependance on other templates, like Mat ? My thoughts on this are that stub templates are desirable in this case, but should be refined and specific, not generic 'do everything' templates.

2a) What should handle category injection, the named item template, or stub templates ? ( I think stub templates, but again, stub templates should be single purpose )

3) Do you want to do value validation for some of the variables passed in ( make sure material is equal to steel/wood/gem ), If so, how would you propose that is best handled? ( i suggest .... you guessed it, stub templates )

4) The comment for slot says required, I'm assuming that named item template is not going to be used for named items that dont have a slot ( like Eternal Flask of Heroism, or Mark of the Yugoloth ), or does the slot requirement need to be revised to being optional? ( perhaps named item template to be renamed to named equipable item template ? )

If I could get answers/thoughts on those questions, it will give me a better understanding of what's to be finished for the template. In the meantime, I'll try and review existing templates / design to see how it best fits in.

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 11:08, April 26, 2013 (EDT)

I'd be happy to answer your questions about it.

1. Yes
2. There was quite a bit of logic legwork left to do one it. No, I didn't want to remove dependence on Template:Mat for right now as there may be too much logic there that would make this Named Item too heavy. I'll have to take another look and consider that nearer the end.
   • Both. Template:Mat and all of the "enhancement" templates should do their own and Named Item should do the rest.
3. I had thought about that, and decided against it for now because Turbine-DDO has been coming out with new stuff too often lately. However, once this template is cleaned up, tested, and deployed, then we'll be in a much better place to get Xevo to install symantic which allows for this kind of thing much more easily.
4. Every item has a slot technically... That slot may be "inventory" in cases like you've mentioned above and that should be added as a slot.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 12:25, April 26, 2013 (EDT)

New drops option

Please add this option to the #switch statement:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{drops|}}}}}
|both=<br />This item drops on death or on leaving adventure
|death=<br />This item drops on death
|leaving=<br />This item drops on leaving adventure
|destroy=This item is destroyed on exiting adventure
}}

— previous unsignedPlease sign posts using ~~~~ comment by Corgrind ^{( c | e | d | r | b )} at 16:05, April 23, 2021 (UTC)

• What's the practical difference between leaving and destroy? We already have a drops parameter with both, death, and leaving.  👟 ShoeMaker (Contribs • Message • Email) 👟 22:22, May 28, 2021 (EDT)

The difference is: If in a group and an item is destroyed no other player can pick it up. Also it's an occuring flag on items. ⇒ Corgrind (Contribs • Message • Email) 10:17, May 31, 2021 (EDT)