Template talk:Polymock piece infobox

What's the form icon? --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about the need for 3 images? There is a form and there is a piece, what is the third for? --Lemming 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's the inventory icon for the piece, the render for the piece when dropped, and a "form icon"... not sure what that is though. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When you play polymock you take the form of the piece you are using I believe. --Lemming 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For a Fire Imp Polymock piece :

• First image represents a Fire Imp (actually it's the player disguised)
• Second image represents the inventory icon of the piece
• Third image is the icon that appears in the top-left of the screen while you're in this form (see this)

Didn't care about the dropped image. You think I should? Chriskang 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the first image should be a variable so we can reuse renders of existing monsters --Lemming 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if they look the same, they're functionaly different and I thought it was a better idea to have different renders. For example, we don't want to use the miniature Asura render to represent an asura NPC, do we? In the same way, I think a Fire Imp monster and a Fire Imp Polymock piece should have different renders. Chriskang 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes we would and do, see Miniature Gwen for example. They are identical models, there is no point having redundancy in different names for the same image. --Lemming 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we do it for now but I thought everyone agreed to say it's wrong. If you look at the Asura page, you can see clearly that this is a mini and I strongly believe that the image doesn't fit the article at all. Do we really need to spare room on Anet's hard drive so we can't upload different versions of a same model when needed? Look at the Mergoyle picture. If we re-use this one for the Mergoyle Polymock piece, player will clearly see that it's not Polymock piece but taken from another render. Personnaly, I would find that disturbing. Of course, if we can get clear renders of the monsters (I mean hi-res, with no background, like in the NPC project) then I would be the first one to take those renders and put them on both pages (Mergoyle monster & Mergoyle Polymock piece). But for now, I don't think we have that. Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign

Is this label necessary, they are all Eye of the North at the moment as far as we know? --Lemming 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I put it here because I thought it was mandatory to mention campaign on each item page but I don't like it either. Let's remove it. Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more useful variables to add?

How about: Obtained from: --Lemming 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure on that. There seems to be a lot of possible acquisition sources (unlocked while playing the minigame, found in multiple chests). I think this deserves a full section in the main article, not just a few lines in the infobox. Maybe we could wait until release and see how many ways there are to gain pieces? Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I suspect each dungeon chest only gives one type of piece based on the limited information we have so far. --Lemming 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Or at least if it's a quest reward or not. Also, the rarity would be interesting, no?-- Cyberman 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Item

Isn't this an item? - BeX 09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this and propose merge with the Item infobox as this is simply an item.. poke | talk 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When I created this template, there were 3 images in it as I thought the environment effect icon would be different for each piece. Now that this image has been removed (cause icons are all the same) I suppose the merge should be possible. Just a little warning : it will be very hard to comply with the GWW:ITEM policy, because articles don't describe just the inventory item but also the piece that you use while playing the game (including its build and maybe later a little strategy specific to the piece). If it's not a problem to be a little out of the policy, then merge. Chriskang 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can change GWW:ITEM because it's a formatting guideline, not a policy. - BeX 08:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I agree, may as well use the item infobox. --Lemming 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree in merging this with the item infobox. —ZerphaThe Improver 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So ...everyone agreed 1.5 years ago, and it's still not done? Backsword 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Render image name

Isn't the "render" suffix in the name redunant? The inventory icon uses a .png file, the render a .jpg file. So it should better be:

[[Image:{{{1}}}_Polymock_piece.jpg|200px]]

(We already had a quite similar discussion on the Inventory icons project and ended up using the same names for both pics (I also asked the same question on Item infobox template talk)) —ZerphaThe Improver 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)