[Arknights] Costume implications

Posted under Tags

magcolo said in forum #414837: The thing with Arknights not that people can't tell the difference. Arknights has a few users regularly spamming Elite II tags on the official Elite II arts. That's why a lot of them only has a single post.

For the record I agree with magcolo on this. It's that such minor changes or no changes at all, period, are getting tagged, which is for a character tag. What, specifically, would a user who is looking for a character like Kirara's Elite II form (post #4556366) want to see? There is nothing in her outfit, her hairstyle, her eyecolor, her skin color, anything of that sort that a member level or non-account-user would like to see. The presence of televisions? That's not even tagged there, but I guess. So is post #4563372 her Elite II? post #5314559? This is just one example.

Where NNT and magcolo and I differ is the level of difference needed, and I'm completely willing to step back and relent on nuking them if they can come up with a good reason for it. But a character like Surtr where the only difference in her actual design is the presence of a golem (which is already tagged ( Surtr's Golem (Arknights) ), by the way) or Sussurro where it's just her jacket being slightly open is completely ridiculous and doesn't necessitate a tag in my opinion.

downtempo said in forum #414839:

Where NNT and magcolo and I differ is the level of difference needed, and I'm completely willing to step back and relent on nuking them if they can come up with a good reason for it. But a character like Surtr where the only difference in her actual design is the presence of a golem (which is already tagged ( Surtr's Golem (Arknights) ), by the way) or Sussurro where it's just her jacket being slightly open is completely ridiculous and doesn't necessitate a tag in my opinion.

I agree with the last part. What I'm advocating are ones like Elysium (Elite II) and Bison (Elite II).

Elysium wears a different shirt, it may look the same because both shirts are black but if you look at the details the Elite II shirt has a different collar, button instead of zipper and no sleeve. He also gains a triangular pendant. I've already populated it to give an impression.

Bison wears loose shorts completely different from his default pants, which is a more obvious change than a lot of our tagged Elite IIs, so I really don't think it should be removed. It has one post because I didn't find any other post depicting his E2 outfit.

Some of the others like Beeswax (Elite II) or Zima (Elite II) I don't have strong opinions. Some of them can't be searched with gentags, it would be nice to group them, but otherwise I'm fine too. At this point most of the passable Elite IIs are already handled, for the remaining I think we should look at each tag individually to decide if they should be kept. Doing large patches is inefficient.

Updated by magcolo

magcolo said in forum #414857: [...]

At this point most of the passable Elite IIs are already handled, for the remaining I think we should look at each tag individually to decide if they should be kept. Doing large patches is inefficient.

I'm not 100% sure the shirt is different for Elysium but I think the presence of the pendant-necklace-string thing is enough to push it over the edge. Likewise with Bison I don't really think just having a pair of black shorts is enough (should it only be tagged if it's specifically a below-the-waist art?) but again I'm willing to relent because at least you made a case for it instead of just slapping the Elite II tag on there and calling it a day.

Your last paragraph I am in complete agreement with; in general these differences are so small they definitely need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

downtempo said in forum #414890:

I'm not 100% sure the shirt is different for Elysium but I think the presence of the pendant-necklace-string thing is enough to push it over the edge. Likewise with Bison I don't really think just having a pair of black shorts is enough (should it only be tagged if it's specifically a below-the-waist art?) but again I'm willing to relent because at least you made a case for it instead of just slapping the Elite II tag on there and calling it a day.

Your last paragraph I am in complete agreement with; in general these differences are so small they definitely need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

If you compare post #10078226 and post #3887651 you can see through the arm opening of his coat that the E2 shirt has no sleeves, while the default shirt has long sleeves. The default shirt also has a straight collar and zippers, while E2 shirt has a lapel-like collar and no zippers.

The thing about Bison is that he's not a popular character, otherwise I would populate some examples. He also has kneehighs, legwear garters and a different pair of shoes in his Elite II. I think it's different enough.

I also just populated Beeswax (Elite II) to have an impression. Not sure what we'll do about this one but just for some statistics. Out of the 44 posts, 6 are tagged forehead mark, 8 are tagged third eye, 12 are tagged glowing and 22 are tagged none of the above. One thing I agree with NNT is that we can't rely on users to use general tags with enough consistency as a replacement for a specific form, and sometimes they cannot be consistently tagged due to artistic licensing. I usually keep an eye on these cases but I don't spend all my time doing it either. If we chose to not tag something then it means we agree that the thing is not worth tagging. General tag is not a suitable middle ground. It's the same thing with that Amiya Guard and Medic fusion, this search works for now only because I've been maintaining it.

Kawakijin said in forum #414965:

Actually, on second thought, there might be more nuance required for this one, it seems Dolly is a specific lamb, though the only visual difference is just a crown.

Little Black Sheep are Dolly's creations. They're not Dolly himself. Dolly is a specific character. This is Dolly. For tagging this is meant for these ambiguous pink sheep. They're an Arknights thing, not an Endfield thing, people are just tagging them on Endfield posts because I tagged Little Black Sheep on Ardelia's official art.

Updated by magcolo

feng8488 said in forum #416530:

BUR #54305 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication frostnova_(absolved_will_be_the_seekers)_(arknights) -> frostnova_(arknights)
create implication shuo's_husk_(arknights) -> chongyue_(arknights)

Special outfits and forms of characters

This brings out something I've been wanting to discuss. There isn't a firm standard on non-playable appearances from story stages for the moment, but most of them use descriptive qualifiers instead of source qualifiers. I don't really mind either way, but I would like there to be a standard.

Counterarguments to source qualifier:

  • Multiple non-playable appearances from the same source, such as Kal'tsit's A Walk in the Dust outfits (forum #388836).
  • It's unlikely for most people unfamiliar with the material to know the origin, so it might create confusion, especially for characters with a lot of costume tags.
  • Certain appearances already have an easy and concise descriptive term, such as the *_(young)_(arknights) tags, the *_(summer)_(arknights) tags and the *(npc)_(arknights) tags.

Counterarguments to descriptive qualifier:

  • Harder to think of a descriptive name for certain appearances.
  • Certain appearances already have an easy and concise source term, such as the *(act*)_(arknights) tags.

In the specific case of Frostnova I think frostnova (if) (arknights) or frostnova (rhodes island uniform) (arknights) are better qualifiers.

Also, we already have rhodes island uniform, so I don't know if we want to double tag her with a costume tag. I don't oppose the idea, but do note in most cases the decision is no. Does anyone remember if there are exceptions?

Updated by magcolo

1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36