Talk:List of unique items

A suggestion
A lot of the items on this page list the AR, ER or ES that was present on the item owned by the person who created it, and not the value that the item will have if it drops for someone else. I think this page would better serve the community if we changed those values (and any others that display based on a range modifier, like weapon physical damage) to either show the base value for their item, or show the range of damage values they can have. (Another point of interest is items with flat phys dmg values, Im not sure if thats more helpful to display as part of the main range, or as separate bonus damage listed below, like elemental damage is for some items.)

I'll check back here tomorrow to see what everyone thinks about this. I don't mind doing it myself, but I didn't want to jump right in and change up the page since I'm pretty new to the community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎ Daiaren (talk • contribs)  01:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, currently all the values given are the max values possible on each item considering the mods as would be displayed in game(or at least they should be, I may have missed a few here and there). Here's my view on the subject: Talk:Unique_Items. Value Ranges are absolutely out of the question in sortable tables, the tables will just not sort properly at all. The only other options are base damage/defense(which I'm against as it's totally misleading. you can just go to the normal items page if you want to sort by base values), max damage/defense(the format I'm currently implementing), or average dps/defense(this is doable but a pain in the ass to calculate. moreover it's a pain in the ass for players to calculate as their own character stats will differ greatly). So the only two options are Max values vs. Avg values. Oh, and as for flat values.. flat values are quite important to include when displaying damage. That damage is what makes the unique item better or worse than comparable unique items or rare items a player may have. In game, those flat values are included in the total damage for the item, they should be included here as well. --FaceLicker (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A perfect example of why value ranges do not work in sortable tables. Someone updated all the Unique Boots while I was away. Value Ranges do not sort properly, there is no way around it. That's why for Unique Swords, I put (Max Damage) as the column header. Originally, I did type in value ranges as you see on the boots, then I learned that it's not very practical. If someone can come up with a workable solution, I'll be more than happy to implement it. Until that time, I'm going with max values as I have been the whole time. It's fairly easy to understand, it's easier to transcribe, it makes the tables sort properly, and it looks cleaner.--FaceLicker (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know of a few potential solutions. The simplest is to always use a template such as when specifying ranges of values. I can then modify the template so it calculates the average then prepends it to the table cell but is hidden. - AnnanFay (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tested, it works. -AnnanFay (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, then we should all avoid creating new unique item pages until you can add it into the Template:NewItem with a working testcase.--FaceLicker (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Something I was just thinking about.. I purposely removed the value ranges from weapons. Take Tipua Kaikohuru for example, it looks quite ridiculous and totally screws up the table row when you have a Minimum Damage range of (10.5-12,) rounded up to (11-12) as the game would do, and a Maximum Value range of (49-56) all displayed on one line as "Physical Damage: (11-12)-(49-56)". To me, this not only looks shitty but it creates problems with the sortable tables. Again, that's why I've been using max values only.--FaceLicker (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry if I messed up anything. Just wanted to punch in accurate numbers and I'm new to this. Would it be a good idea if there was a set of 'Max' values (MaxEnergyShield, MaxArmour, etc.) hidden in the template solely for sorting reasons? The range values (12-24, for example) can be displayed on the Unique Items list page(s) and the sorting by max value (24 in that case)? I don't mind throwing more numbers/variables in to fix anything that might be messed up. TheSpiral (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, you didn't mess anything up at all. In fact, I'm glad you did the boots section because now people can see why value ranges screw up sorting functionality. The problem is clearly visible and now we can work on a solution :) That's a good idea too a hidden table with either max or avg values. We'll see what Annanfay comes up with the ranged value template. I honestly have no clue how to make that work. --FaceLicker (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad I didn't dive right in! Okay, to the first point, max values sound reasonable but I didnt read the column headers when I got to this page, and Im not sure most people will either. The reason I suggested putting the base values here on these tables as well (because you're right, I could go to the Armour page to look it up) is that with the base values, I can do my own math to know what ranges I can expect from the gear. I was more interested in the minimum value i was guaranteed to receive from the item than what I could get if a GGG employee gave me a perfect item (since, with my luck, thats the only way). Second, it makes errors easier to spot (because the data is duplicated on another page) - for example, Ambu's Charge is currently listed at 338 AR, 100 ES. Its base item has 138 AR, and 45 ES. Ambu's has a max AR/ES modifier listed at 100%, which should yield 276 AR, 90 ES. It has 62 AR and 10 ES that I can't account for just by looking at the stats displayed on this page. (even 20% quality doesnt account for the disparity). I do agree that it is cooler to show the modified values - could we add more columns? Min AR, Max AR, Min ES, Max ES, Min Phys Dmg, Max Phys Dmg, etc? That would allow people to sort by the values that they care most about (min for me, max for FaceLicker, etc) at the cost of some added table complexity. That gets us around the problem of writing ranges into the tables. --Daiaren (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit - As FaceLicker points out, the PoE website does list values for Crusader's Chainmail that work for Ambu's Charge. But my example stands for a different reason - this wiki page http://en.pathofexilewiki.com/wiki/Chest_Armour#Crusader_Chainmail lists the item with incorrect stats. If I wanted to look at the base stats of an item that I see on this page, I'm probably going to stay on this wiki when I look them up. So the error checking is still a nice feature. --Daiaren (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Having Max and Min values for everything is a terrible idea! O.o Though I'm not sure what to do for weapons. -AnnanFay (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's really two questions and it's probably best if we deal with them separately.
 * Q1; How do we want to display the data?
 * Q2; How do we record the data?
 * The answer to Q2 is to allow the most complete data, which means passing raw data to the NewItem template. This means getting rid of calls to mod and, the newly created, range templates and instead calling them inside NewItem. I'll need to do some tests. -AnnanFay (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how I'd like to display data in the  sortable table rows - max values. The individual item pages should have value ranges - (x-y). As for how it get's recorded.. I don't really care as long as it's displayed coherently and consistently.
 * As far as displaying data goes, here's another problem I have with sorting ranged values.. Let's say there's a pair of boots with a range of (80-100) ES, an average of 90. Let's say there's another pair of boots with a range of (85-98) ES, an average of 91.5, and another pair with (90-97), an average of 93.5. If we sort by the average ES in descending order, then then it will be 1. (90-97) 2. (85-98), 3. (80-100). To me, this is confusing because the boots with the highest max ES are sorted lower than boots with the lowest max ES. When equipping items in game, one does not think 'Let me use this item because it has a higher value range, even though my stats will be lower overall'. Haha, maybe I'm just overthinking this too much. Personally, though, if I sort things in descending order then I want the item with the highest possible value on top, it just makes sense. To be honest, if I had my way, I'd just ditch the sorting function in the table rows, save for alphabetically by item name or base type and numerically by required level, and display the ranges for everything.--FaceLicker (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. Another problem! The parenthesis are forcing the columns to sort alphabetically instead of numerically. For example, on the Unique Boots page, The evasion column is placing Sin Trek's (343-382) as a lower value than Lioneye's Paws' 48. If it were sorting numerically, then Sin Trek would be the highest value. Instead, it's sorting alphabetically in this fashion: 1,10,11,2,23,24,3,4,5. Do we get rid of the parenthesis on the individual item pages?--FaceLicker (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The parentheses have been removed in order to use the range. I think the code just needs to be copied from the Energy Shield sorting to Evasion and Armour sorting, not sure though. Seems to work fine for Energy Shield sorting. I'm fine with sorting by range (average) or max, as long as it's consistent. Clicking Evasion and seeing a list of Evasion items is useful, even if it's not technically the 'best' item, that's for the user to decide on their own. TheSpiral (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sidetracked
I've been sidetracked with some things as of late but I plan on finishing up all the individual unique item pages this Easter weekend. I'll add in as much info as I can and then after that I'm done with the uniques aside from adding the weekly new items. I'll still maintain the list on the PoE forum, people get all anxious if I don't update the second a new patch rolls out, but I'll leave it up to other members to keep up with the main Unique Items page, adding or removing info as they see fit, and taking care of any discrepancies that may be found across all the unique item pages.

One thing I'd like to note is that I currently lack information on uniques released between Version 0.9.11 and Version 0.10.0. I was keeping a timeline, but I seem to have forgot to keep track during that period and since the forum was wiped of all closed beta items I have no way of telling which items were released in which patch. I sent an e-mail to Carl @ GGG asking for that information but he has yet to reply. Perhaps I'll send an e-mail to Erik as well.. So, if anyone does happen to have that info, please add it the item pages.--FaceLicker (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Shields mistake
Shields block % and energy shield seems to be swapped, can someone fix? I have no idea how to wiki --Lazyfulness (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I will fix it. —Vinifera7 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Flavour Text from table view
What would people say if we removed the flavour text from the tables? It truly serves no purpose in comparing items. No one decides that an item is better for their character simply because the text is cooler, or rhymes better, or is more grammatically correct. People decide which item to use based on stats, flavour text is not a stat. If we removed the flavour text, we would have a lot more room for the existing columns and people would be less likely to get horizontal scroll bars on their browser thus making a more comfortable viewing experience. If people do want to see the flavour text, they can just visit the individual item page where they can also see other information that is not displayed in the table regarding builds, diamond supporters and other various things should that info exist. I really think we need to get rid of the flavour text column, I see no reason not to. I'll give people a while to respond 'yea' or 'nay'. --FaceLicker (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the flavour text, but I think it makes sense to hide help text on maps in table view. —Vinifera7 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Final defense values of shields are outdated
All shield bases' defense was nerfed back in 1.0 and the unique shield's final defense value stayed outdated, should it be updated?

The current values displayed seems to equal the up-to date values WITH quality, but the wiki displays all of the unique's defense without quality.

I just wanted to get a confirmation that I'm right before I edit all of the shields. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Srmark (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * You are correct. The values are outdated and should be listed without quality. Thanks for taking the initiative to update these. —Vini (t|c) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add note for legacy items
There should be some way of distinguishing league-specific uniques, and any other uniques that can no longer drop. More than once I've browsed this page looking for build inspiration, only to find the unique I was theorycrafting my build around can't even drop anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyfetus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed actually, but we have yet to build the categories for it. One important distinction is that items with drop restrictions are categorically different from items with legacy variants, but the two are not mutually exclusive. —Vini (t|c) 18:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates not loading
There seems to be something wrong with the item templates at the bottom of the page (2H Swords, Flasks an Maps) as they aren't loading. - Climmels (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a known issue and has been discussed in the community portal. —Vini (t|c) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Did not see that one. Sorry! - Climmels (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)