Legends talk:Unobtainable Cards

Splitting arguments of Unobtainable cards

Dwarfmp came with the idea to split the arguments of the obtainable parameter of Legends Card. I agree, because a lot of times, we don't want created cards and AI cards to be mixed when calling this parameter. But we need to decide how to split and what names we'll give the arguments. At the moment there are in my opinion five categories of unobtainable cards:

1. Summoned/created cards that can be obtained with help of other cards during normal play.
2. Cards only available by you or the opponent during story and practice mode.
3. Cards removed from the game.
4. Special (i.e. Out of Cards)
5. Pre-release cards that never saw the light after open beta.

So my idea is to keep the obtainable parameter with the following arguments: Yes (no change, should be the default), creation (or summoned?), AI?, removed, special, prerelease. Luckily most of these are already nicely categorized in the tables on this page, so I hope a bot can quite easily change the arguments if necessary.

Any thoughts? --Ilaro (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the premise, and the categories largely make sense. Is this card obtainable?

• Yes - it's a standard card you can collect and put in your deck
• Creation - you can get this card in play from a standard Obtainable card
• Scenario - this card only appears in specific cases, such as story missions or arena matches (more broadly applicable than 'AI').
• Special - Specialty mechanics that are portrayed as cards. Currently only Out of Cards
• Removed - this is a category of card recorded for historical purposes
• Prerelease - this is a different category of card recorded for historical purposes

I want this issue addressed for two reasons.

1. Allows for auto generated tables using our existing templates
2. Gets Cruel Bandit out of the Created section and puts it in the Scenario-Specific section where it belongs!

--Lost in Hyrule (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points and I absolutely agree that Cruel Bandit should be listed as a Scenario card (if we would follow your list). Arena cards would also be in the Scenario category I assume. Only the Special category is missing in your list now, but I can completely stand behind this. --Ilaro (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I was editing on mobile, it made checking my work tricky, and I forgot to include Special! I wonder if there will ever be anything besides Out of Cards... Anyway, I'll edit my list to include it. I also reordered the list to indicate the relative importance of the categories. Creation cards are the most relevant, and Scenario cards are also very important for anyone referencing UESP. Special is a useful explanation, and the other two are curiosities. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I see I made a small mistake. The param is called obtainable, not unobtainable. Fixed it in my first post. --Ilaro (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) I believe that a demarcation may be useful; I'll summarize my thoughts:

• Yes - agree
• Creation - "Creation" is close to the term we see in-game, but I believe that the play history shows "Created" - I would be inclined to name it as closely as possible to the game, and since "created" is also an adjective, I would suggest this term instead.
• Scenario - Perhaps "Scenario-specific" to be more explicit in the description and to uniformize the terms as adjectives.
• Special - Disagree, "special" is very nonspecific and Out of Cards could just as easily be placed into others.
• Removed - Agree
• Prerelease - Could be confused with the MtG term, and isn't quite an adjective - I'd suggest "Unreleased" instead.

These are just my thoughts, and of that list, I agree with the spirit if not the word of this proposition. Fullerton ﴾_talk﴿ 23:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - "prerelease" is also a poor choice of wording as we already have the {{Pre-Release}} template, and so calling cards "pre-release" could merely imply that they haven't yet been released but will be - when in fact that were unreleased and never, ever will be released. Additionally, while "Scenario-specific" is long, one can simply input "sce" as an alias. Additionally, I believe that the retention of the current standard of using adjectives in this param will be important for uniformity, something which is of value to a wiki. Fullerton ﴾_talk﴿ 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do like the seeming uniformity of the adjectives. Since you can have short aliases, that seems acceptable. Unreleased is definitely better for the reasons you cited, and Created is both accurate to the game and sounds a bit better. For Special, maybe Technical would be better, or Other. So, our current list of parameter values is Yes, Created, Scenario-Specific, Removed, Unreleased, and Special/Technical/Other on the chopping block.

I'm not certain of Out of Cards being folded into one of the other categories. Unreleased and Removed obviously don't work. I don't think we could classify it as Scenario Specific. It is kind of a Created card, but not in the same sense as the others.

Actually, I changed my mind: it's a special card created when certain conditions arise. That's the same as Sweet Roll or Ancient Giant or Vision of the Tenth Eye. I'm fine calling it Created, reserving the right to call for a Technical section if ever a more comparable card exists. I'd probably say Elixir of Magicka would have been in the same category before it's removal. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So, to come back to this topic (because I want it to be settled so we can run a bot).

• "yes" - This is the default.
• "created" - For cards that can be obtained in some way by cards that fall in the "yes" category.
• "scenario-specific" - I don't really like this one. While it needs to be factual, it also just an arbitrary argument. It needs to be as simple and easy to remember as possible. The dash is also annoying to remember. If we'll shorten it in the template, then I see no reason to not just use anything else that's more logical to remember.
• "special" - I am still a supporter for this, because we want to display Out of Cards separate from the other lists (and if it will get the "created" argument, it will be displayed twice on this page).
• "removed" - Seems to have no opposition.
• "unreleased" - Agreed that this is better than prerelease.

--Ilaro (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) Agree with Ilaro, in that the current parameter list is sufficient with the exception of "scenario-specific". I would ideally like this to be an adjective, but which one? Limited? Scenarized? Scenery? Situational? Fullerton ﴾_talk﴿ 23:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

How about 'no'? I know we're mildly stretching definitions here, but I think it works. Special, Removed, and Unreleased are all 'obtainable: no', but with special criteria. The cards that are in the game but can't be used in standard play could be the generic 'no' answer. So then our options would be Yes, Created, No, Special*, Removed, and Unreleased. We can easily have a small paragraph explaining the No category on this page, possibly using the phrase 'Scenario Specific' or otherwise. I have no strong opinions on 'Special' --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Added them to the Legends Card template after I got confirmation from Fullerton. Now we only need to have a bot that will change the params on their respective card pages. --Ilaro (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Partition

Following the previous discussion, I've noticed that this page itself has become rather unwieldy. I propose this is remedied by moving the Created Cards section to the relevant page, and keeping the truly-unobtainable cards here. I think that this should be acted upon relatively soon; the count of created and unobtainable cards is only increasing, and it'd be best to have pages that are more easily perused. Fullerton ﴾_talk﴿ 08:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement. This would also make it easier to give an accurate description on each page. And we wouldn't need to keep the inaccurate 'AI Cards' title to contrast it with Created. Make it so! --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually suggested this as an idea on the discord as well, the pages are only gonna grow as new cards keep coming, so yes agreed ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)