User talk:Asuaka

Precursor and legendary skins

Hey Asuaka, back in October 2024, you modified the legendary and precursor pages to add in additional skins for each weapon type. For example here for the Legend or here for the Bifrost. Was there a particular intention behind these changes? The reason I am asking is because this causes some issues when using the API to check whether a skin is already unlocked or not since the templates may pick up the wrong skin. Usually, there is only a single wardrobe skin attached to an item (an exception is the T2 legendary armor), so the infobox should reflect that.

I noticed this issue when looking at Precursor weapon#Weapons when the API check incorrectly greyed out weapons which I did not have unlocked. Now before I was going to undo these skin changes, I wanted to ask to make sure that I wasn’t missing some intention behind those edits. Thanks! poke | talk 22:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Heya,

All of the gen 1 legendary weapons unlock the three precursor weapons (experimental, perfected and "finished" precursor) skins when binding it. Same goes for the precursors, those unlock both the experimental and the perfected skin. The intention behind those changes was to reflect that unlock behavior and make all possible sources show up on the respective skin pages, e.g. here The Legend Experiment (skin).

There are other sets that come to mind like the Mistforged Hero's weapons and Mistforged Obsidian weapons that also unlock their T1 sets so I guess the API check there potentially has the same issues? — Asuaka (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Yeah, if there are other weapons with a similar behavior, I guess we need to come up with something good there. Maybe we can split up the skin that a weapon uses from the skins that acquiring a weapon unlocks. I do agree that it would be useful to have the skin list all acquisition methods automatically.

Thanks for the context, I’ll see if I can think of a good approach for this! poke | talk 19:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems like there is already a mechanism for that with the {{Unlocks skin}} template. So I would remove those skins from the infobox and list the unlocks separately, bringing back the way it was originally on Tooth of Frostfang (but nowhere else). Hopefully that should fix the API checks since that will utilize the "Has skin" property while the acquisition list on the skin pages in addition also utilizes the "Unlocks skin" property. poke | talk 19:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I remember that Frostfang diff from a discord conversation about that specific change, see here. I'd be fine with moving them out of the infobox for now to fix the API checks but I stand by my last comment in that discord post in that I believe there should be some consistent formatting for handling multiple unlocks and currently that way is to use the skin property on the infoboxes. — Asuaka (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

That’s some useful context, thanks. I do think that we should not list other skin unlocks simply as they are right now in the infobox though. If I for example take a look at Twilight and I want to see its skin, I am only interested in the primary Twilight skin itself. It does not seem that important to me to know that acquiring the weapon will also unlock three other skins that are not really related to the looks of the legendary, but are instead just some multiple levels of precursors of it. The skin for a weapon (or an armor piece) is usually a 1-to-1 relationship (except for some very rare exceptions). So I would prefer if we stick to the directly related information in the infobox.

I do fully agree that documenting the unlocked skins is some useful and important information, and we should have a standardized way to communicate additional skin unlocks, without obscuring the main skin itself in the same process. I’ll try to come up with a list of affected items later and see what makes most sense. But I think a traditional heading with all skin unlocks (including any main skin) would make the most sense. poke | talk 22:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)