Forum:Equipped Armour Images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Equipped Armour Images
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2019 by IsobelJ.

Note: I took most of this from Srylius since he had something written up already.

While updating some of the equipped armour images, in- and outside of Daemonheim, a few issues and inconsistencies have come up and this thread is was made to address these. There are two core issues at hand and these are as follows:

"Standard" and not-so-standard armour[edit source]

A relic of the pre-EoC combat system are the "light" melee armour pieces like medium helms and chainbodies, these are also found to a certain degree in Dungeoneering. While the "standard" armour pieces like full helms, platebodies and platelegs are usually taken as a set image, the "light" pieces are not:

Equipped item image as seen on
Bronze full helm
Equipped item image as seen on
Bronze med helm
align="center"|[[File:Bronze armour set (lg) equipped.png|200px]] align="center"|[[File:Bronze med helm equipped.png|125px]]

The issue here is that some of these are taken as set images and some are taken as single item images and so the question has come up how to make them consistent across the wiki. The options here are:

  • Take a separate image for every single one of these items.
  • Take these items as a second set image.
    • These set images would be set up like this:
Standard set Light set
Full helm Helm
Platebody Chainbody
Gauntlets*
Platelegs Plateskirt
Boots

Note: While the Culinaromancer's gloves resemble metal gloves in terms of colour, they are typeless armour and a quest reward, and should not be considered part of a set. As a result, these should probably have standalone equipped images as opposed to their current setup.

Regardless of the option chosen, most of the images will have to be retaken, which brings up another issue that applies to armour pages as a whole:

Male vs Female equipped images[edit source]

As it stands, there is a process of adding equipped images where there is a difference between the two character models, which means practically every torso and a majority of leg armours. The reason this is somewhat important is that it will change when and where these differences are uploaded based on how we proceed with armour sets.

Proposals[edit source]

  • A - Heavy/Light armour sets on male/female characters
  • B - Individual item images, nothing else equipped, only uploading male/female differences where applicable.
  • C - Shut up, Bada, I have a different idea...

Discussion[edit source]

A - I was originally rooting for B but now realize it would be pretty ridiculous. Badassiel 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A - While B seems more logical, A only requires a single image per set (or two, if female/male difference are applicable), as opposed to one screenshot per item plus the full set for the full equipment page. Since we'll have the full set anyway, may as well use it. Also, there are both gloves and gauntlets for each tier up to dragon. I'm not sure if there is a visual distinction but it could be worth verifying. Nericat (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Brought up in Discord, clarifying here for others: While gauntlets and gloves do look different, gauntlets are smithable melee armour and gloves are a typeless armour quest reward, and I feel these shouldn't be considered part of a set. Badassiel 19:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A - Good ideas both (Srylius and Badass). I agree Culinaromancer's gloves should not be included in set images, too ^^ - Rawny (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A - Srylius (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A - I think it looks better in the sets, also agree that Culinaromancer's gloves shouldn't be in set images Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I think it's worth looking at this issue in the wider context of equipment "set" images and equipment set pages being a bit of a mess. Currently the naming is all over the place: there are images/pages called - robes (e.g. citharede robes); there are ones called - equipment (e.g. death lotus equipment), - outfit (e.g. fishing outfit), - clothing (e.g. camouflage clothing, - set (e.g. plague set), etc. Perhaps because of the existence of the boxy armour sets (e.g. Mithril armour set (sk), file names sometimes contain "armour set" for no apparent reason. Some sets do not have a "set page", while others do. I'd like to look at fixing all these problems as well as the current ones. I'd propose:

  • Standardising all "sets" of equipment with combat stats to be called - armour, with set images called "- armour equipped".
  • Standardising all "sets" of equipment without combat stats to be called - outfit, with images called "- outfit equipped".
  • All "sets" to have a disambig-like page which tells you a bit about the set and lists the components. These would be named as above.
  • Only exceptions for naming would be for things where Jagex uses a different name for the set of equipment in-game.
  • Document item sets with different male/female appearances with images with (male)/(female) suffixes.
  • Finish implementing outcome of Forum:New standards for shield equipped images - i.e. retake any outstanding images of shields to be side views with only the shield equipped. Do the same for any offending weapon and cape equipped images (back view for capes).
  • Same standards would also apply for cosmetic overrides - though saying they are equipped is not really correct I don't know what that could be replaced with, or if that would even be worth it.

Coming back to the question about whether these armour items should be a second set image - I am not so sure they should be. Are players likely to be using the less optimal armour items all at once? What would such a set be called? Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - (and potentially poor summary of Discord discussion from the other day ^^) We do need names for the equipped set images, yes. "Heavy" and "light" may be sufficient, since these are effectively only going to be used behind-the-scenes as the file names. As far as I understand, the proposal is to reduce the amount of equipped images we need (to update) by grouping the items. There's no suggestion to create (e.g.) "Bronze armour heavy set" and "Bronze armour light set" pages that would list the components. In fact, I would be opposed to that, as I feel that the sets we document are/should normally be because they are established in-game, for example sets that are stored in the costume room. It's also probable that said sets have names already, though I think the suggested generic names (* armour and * outfit) would be reasonable if we encounter a situation that requires them. Continuing with bronze armour as an example, I think a "Bronze armour" page that lists all the various pieces of bronze armour would be reasonable and would effectively cover non-set disambiguation. The only case I can see for a separate "Bronze armour set" page would be as a disambiguation listing Bronze armour set (lg) and Bronze armour set (sk) but I don't think that (or those pages) should include equipped images (as the two set items are not, themselves, equipped). I am a little wary of feature-creep here, it may make sense to spin some of this off into a separate thread, at least, I don't think discussion of these points would block a consensus being achieved on the original proposal. I think the retaking of shield, cape and weapon equipped images could possibly be OSWF tasks. For the cosmetic overrides, I'm not sure they would need an " equipped"-like suffix, though this may be a non-issue as I would have thought that all of the sets have names in the store and/or in-game interfaces. (If it does turn out to be necessary, then "active"/"activated"/"enabled" or similar terminology might work.) - Rawny (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Good summary and heavy/light work I think. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
👍 - Rawny (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes good summary. I think it was stated either here or on discord that equipment is better suited for gear with combat stats and outfit for the stuff without. While naming conventions aren't the topic of discussion here, they are still at least tangentially relevant, so here's my thought for cosmetics: [Override name] active Badassiel 22:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Equipment seems to be more of a term for anything that can be equipped so I don't like that so much as armour/outfit :P Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks 😌 "... equipment equipped" is an awkward alliterative assembly (albeit amusingly) 😉 In light of that, I'd favour "... armour equipped", though as mentioned above I'm not sure how often these suffixes are likely to come into play. Agreed on "... active" (if/where necessary, due to lack of name) ^^ - Rawny (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A - as per comments above. Also agree Culinaromancer gloves shouldn't be in a set. "Bronze light set (male/female)" and "(Bronze heavy set male/female)" would also be a much better image naming convention than "equipment equipped". Raven (blue).png Crowborn (Talk) 06:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed - RS:IMG has been updated as follows:

  • Sets of equipment with combat stats should be named "[name] armour equipped". For melee gear with a superior and inferior version, the superior version should be called "[name] (heavy) armour equipped" and the inferior version "[name] (light) armour equipped".
  • The "heavy" set should include full helm, platebody, gauntlets, platelegs, and boots.
  • The "light" set should include regular helm, chainbody, gauntlets, plateskirt, and boots.
  • Shields, weapons and capes should be in a separate image with only that item equipped.
  • Sets of equipment without combat stats should be named "[name] outfit equipped". Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 08:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)