Forum:Handling degradeable items
Degradeable items in Old School Runescape are handled in a variety of ways the mechanics of which are often inconsistent, in ways that might prove confusing to new (and even veteran) players. There has been numerous suggestions and different proposals of exactly how to handle degradeable items on the wiki. I will attempt to summarize them, but please add/comment if I missed anything.
These are just my attempt to summarize the suggestions I've seen so far.
- Alter the item infobox to allow communication of some level of detail on how an item degrades. This is similar to how the RS3 wiki handles degradeable items.
- Place a message box explaining that an item degrades and very briefly summarize very key points regarding its mechanics (as shown in Mechanical Differences).
- Place a similar form of visual box to above suggestion either above or below the item stat infobox.
- Something else?
In my opinion, the main four differences between
- What happens when an item degrades? (Broken/drained version, revert to a component, turn into dust.)
- How does the item to degrade? (Hours of combat, uses, hits dealt/taken)
- Can an item still usable when degraded?
- When is an item tradeable?
As following the style guide, general agreement so far has been that fine explicit details of how items degrade should be placed in their own section, and not in the lead text of the article.
Also, suggestions that pages should include some form of link to the degradation page so that users can find more detail.
These are questions I think would be useful to answer in order to come to some kind of consensus.
- How visually prominent should basic information on an item's degradation be? Should it be treated like other basic properties of an item? Should it be draw the readers' attention?
- What information do we want to have present outside a specific section for the item's degradation? I think it's generally agreed that the item degrades is a bare minimum. Do we want to highlight key mechanics as described in "Mechanical Differences?"
- Should most jewellery be treated differently? Most jewellery functions in a fairly consistent way, but still may be confusing for new players. If what's described is visually prominent, should it be less-so on these pages?
My Personal Answers
My original suggestion was to place a messagebox at the top of the page, which I made here. That being said, I have come around to the idea of placing something in a similar format below the infobox for an item's statistics. I think a visually prominent cue as to the fact that an item degrades and a very short explanation of the key notable mechanics (as listed in mechanical differences) would greatly benefit new and veteran players. OSRS handles item degradation in fairly inconsistent ways and this would allow players to gain a fairly good grasp on how the item functions without having to read through a specific long-form section of prose related to the specifics.
One of the key benefits in my opinion to this approach is that it allows new players to develop a more transferable knowledge on item degradation. I personally didn't understand the fine details of the mechanical quirks listed above, and this would allow players to more easily understand how those items differ. If players want to know the details, they can of course read the long-form prose, however as a medium it does a poor job of highlighting key differences between items without being cumbersome in doing so.
I'm not entirely sold on applying this to most jewellery. On the other hand it would allow players to develop more transferable knowledge as described above, and use things like the Ring of Dueling, Ring of Recoil, and Amulet of Glory for jumping-off points to understand other items.MxFox (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I believe that most pages already have some "Degradation" section which details the manner in which it degrades and whether or not it can be repaired. This, in addition to a "Degrades" parameter on either the item or bonuses infobox should suffice.
Comment - I think an optional param on infobox item that just says if an item degrades or not and an in-depth degradation section on each item page is probably best.06:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Further clarification - Currently I think the best way to display this is in Infobox Item with a "degrades = yes" param and an in-depth explanation of degradation on the page. I don't think we can display time-based armour degradation in a way that would fit either infobox. 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I suggest putting something on Infobox Bonuses, which makes more sense to me than Infobox Item. It's reasonable to make it visually prominent (since this is arguably the most important property for a lot of gearing decisions), but probably not full "maintenance template" levels of prominent. ʞooɔ 07:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Per Crow and Cook, + Spine's jewllery comment. I initially was against putting it in the infobox, but the more I look at the pages, the more it makes sense, as long as it is easily visible and noticable. I don't have very much opinion on it otherwise as I can't personally figure out how I would want it done. Choppetalk 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - If we put something in the infobox, I would want it in the Item one and not the Bonus one. Degradation is more of a property of the equipment and not necessarily a bonus (even though the bonuses can be effected). However, if we do place it in that infobox, I would want something more substantial than just
|degrades=Yes. I would rather there be something that is able to be a little more specific and would link to something more specific. Something similar to
|degrades=Charges that would then link to either the degradation of the equipment page or our degradation page. I believe we can improve our Degradation page to better explain some of the differences between the types rather than what we have right now. Also, +1 to Spine's jewellery comment. - Legaia2Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 22:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Agree with Crow + Cook + Choppe that if it's going to be in one of the infoboxes, it should be in the Infobox Bonuses for visibility reasons. Per James, I think it should have some more info than just whether it degrades or not. It looks like the RS wiki does this, giving the number of charges until full degradation. Agree with most that jewelry/teleport crystal shouldn't be considered degradable. I like the wording the message box uses for the info, but I'm not sure it's the best way to handle it since it would be going on a lot of higher end items. I think it could get annoying for more experienced players checking these pages since it pushes content farther down the page. Andmcadams (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment As a player, I would like for it to be in the variable infobox, and perhaps elaborated further in the article, in a subsection. For example, Barrows items Karil's_leathertop#25 is a key example. It's ultimately useful information for me, and especially new players to know that depending on the degradation, it will become untradeable, will do less damage, etc. If I need more information about it, I would just go to the specific "Degradation" section to view more details about it. The infobox should include all of the common aspects that normal items do. To answer the questions specifically, 1) It should be treated like any other aspect of the item. 2)Mechanical differences between the full/half degraded item should be elaborated in the specific degradation section, or if it's becoming too large for that section, make it a subsection of degradation. 3)I'm not actually familiar on Jewelry and the intricate aspects of its degradation, but it should be handled in a way that's clear to readers on what the key differences are between all levels of degradation. Lakai (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - Which Infobox do you mean by variable infobox? Are you talking about Template:Infobox Bonuses or Template:Infobox Item? - Legaia2Pla ᴛ · ʟ · ᴄ 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Closure - As there has been no discussion on the topic for over a month, the proposer of the thread disappearing, and lack of consensus on what should be done, this thread is hereby closed. -- SpineTalk 01:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)