Prismata Wiki

Victory Bond[]

Currently Victory Bond still shows up in the colorless section of the unit groups, but this is completely replaced by Auric Impulse. So we either need a way for obsolete units to not show up anymore in the unit list or to delete the data table of Victory Bond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhala (talkcontribslogsblock log)

There is a way, but due to a bug in the Semantic MediaWiki extension, it's a little harder to do than it should be. The problem was that Victory Bond was redirected without removing the infobox first, and that's where the bug comes in. To get the properties to actually clear from a page, it is unfortunately necessary to blank the page, save it, and then edit it again to put the redirect in. They don't update during the save that turns a page into a redirect.
This was a special situation, though, because it was renamed. For units that are just removed from the game, the better option is to edit the infobox like this:
{{Unit infobox

That will put it in a different category so it doesn't get pulled into the card tables. OOeyes (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Unit Tables[]

Unit table appears broken? I am uncertain how to resolve, but appears to be an issue with the template I think (??). Also, it seems everything has been changed to "basic" set to refer to ABCDEFGRSTW. In the client it's "Base" wanted to get feedback before I made any changes (I believe we should be using "Base Set" and remove all references to "Basic Set").--NNUMskull (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to poke around but my wikicode is rusty and these templates aren't for the rusty. I thought it may have been an issue with categories being assigned to certain pages but revering certain changes doesn't fix it so I doubt it. Is anyone sure how long it's been broken for? I also agree with the "Base Set" change, just for clarity. --Sabre070 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I assume you refer to my messing around with the categories in {{Unit table by type}}{{Unit infobox}}. That's probably the problem. I don't see anywhere in {{Unit table by type}} that would be affected by that, but my wikicode isn't all that great, especially when we get into all sorts of mediawiki extensions I've never even seen before I got to this wiki (what even is {{#lstsep}}?). I did however notice you only waited about a couple minutes before reverting the changes you made in both cases - it took a pretty long time for everything to update when I made the change at first (which would explain me not noticing that the tables ended up broken). Reverting my edit should fix it, but I'll try the edit to {{Unit table by type}} first, although I'll leave it a bit longer before reverting. Pjoelj (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like that did the trick. I really should've watched a bit closer to see that stuff like that wouldn't happen. Lesson learned and wiki hopefully de-broken. Pjoelj (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks. I don't know how template stuff works and was just asking for help. Is anyone strongly opposed to changing references to "Basic Set" to "Base Set" to be consistent with the client? I'll probably make changes in the next couple days unless people are opposed/want to discuss.--NNUMskull (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sweet, thought it was. I assumed the fix would be near-instant so didn't wait that long (and I didn't want to revert changes and stuff when I'm not a huge wiki editor here. --Sabre070 (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Partially spoke too soon. Vel'Kar's units are listed in colorless. I don't think they were before but they should probably have their own section (especially since more PvE content is going to be coming in the future. --Sabre070 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe they were like that before as well, but I can't say for sure. I still agree that they shouldn't show up there, though. I tried setting the units to not available in their infoboxes just now and it looks like it worked for Gunbot... But not for any of the other units. Pjoelj (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
After making changes like that to any of those templates, it's often necessary to resave the pages with the tables due to the wiki cache. And it's also a big reason why you need to be careful editing those templates. Some changes may require all unit pages to be resaved, especially any to {{Unit infobox}} itself or any of the properties or categories it relies on, unless you want a long time for the wiki to catch up. It really is probably best to ask me to make those changes because I can run a bot resave afterwards to force updates. OOeyes (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unit types with energy[]

Does anyone else feel that Energy-Green, Energy-Blue, Energy-Red, Energy-Green-Blue, Energy-Green-Red, Energy-Blue-Red and Energy-Green-Blue-Red should be unit types? We already have Energy-Green and Energy-Red units (Trinity Drone and Ossified Drone), but {{Unit type index}} doesn't support those unit types, meaning {{Unit infobox}}, {{Unit panels by type}}, {{Unit table by type}} etc. can't deal with them. I don't think anyone want me to mess with the unit type index any time soon, what with the unit infobox situation. Pjoelj (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. They've said that additional units will be added in the coming weeks/months. We don't have the details yet, but probably safe to assume those combinations will be used eventually and should plan for it so the new units can be added when the time comes. --NNUMskull (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I just followed the "categories" they had on this blog page. While there wouldn't be harm in adding energy-whatever to {{Unit type index}}, I think it's very premature to start expanding support for energy-whatever units in other places. Some of these unit types are already pretty short lists, and all the possible energy-whatever unit types just about doubles the number of types. In my opinion, this would subtract rather than add any organizational value until we start getting a lot of energy-whatever units. For now, it's probably just best to note that blue, green, etc. units may also have a cost in energy. OOeyes (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As another point, one advantage of the current types is that they reflect real thematic differences between the units, aside perhaps from Colorless and Energy. But Blue and Energy-Blue will probably share a metal-mechanized/armor theme, Green and Energy-Green will probably have the same high-tech energy theme, and Red and Energy-Red will probably have the same organic theme. OOeyes (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I would propose merging colourless and energy categories. Both of these are pretty small, and as a result remaining categories would be completely logical with no exceptions for coloured energy units. Energy page already lists all units requiring energy, which seems much more useful than a list of colourless energy units. MedarPrismata (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That I do agree with. But I'm going to hold off for a while since we don't have an obvious consensus yet on what to do with unit types. OOeyes (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Going last call on this. If there are no objections on this within a day or two, I'll merge Energy-type units into Colorless. (Meant to say this earlier, but due to events out of my control, I was unavailable this week.) OOeyes (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This should be done now. I have a bot resaving pages just in case, but I think everything is already caught up with the colorless-energy merge. OOeyes (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unit page formatting (panels on top)[]

There was a growing trend of having panels on top. I rather like this as I think the page flows better so I went through and changed all the ones that still had panels on bottom this morning. The only downside is that it looks a little weird for units that produce other units (e.g. Endotherm Kit) as both the unit panel and the unit panel(s) for the unit(s) it produces are currently listed in the panel section. Maybe we should move the "produced units" panels to a separate section at the bottom for clarity and improved readability. Thoughts? --NNUMskull (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Usage of icons in articles?[]

I'm wondering if there's a standard we should adopt for using icons in articles, compared to words. For example, should we say that an Engineer costs 2 Gold, or costs 2Gold ? Furthermore, what about using multiple icons instead of # icon (Lucina Spinos costs 4Red resource and provides 4Attack, or costs Red resourceRed resourceRed resourceRed resource and provides AttackAttackAttackAttack)? I tend to use icons in lieu of words, and #icon instead of multiple icons, but I've seen different formats on various articles. Thoughts? -LtGleepGloop (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I really do not like it when icons are used to replace words in complete sentences, it just makes them much harder to read. I think it's good to use them in addition to words in certain cases when giving exact numbers, for example: "Unit has lifespan of Lifespan4" instead of "Unit has Lifespan of 4" or "Unit has Lifespan4". Complete unit costs I think should be given with icons, because it's even common to use similiar notation without icons (Centurion costs 18GGBBR). As for multiple icons vs. number + icon, I would try to use same logic as is used in game: Resources other than gold use multiple, as does attack, most other things don't. -MedarPrismata (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Standardization is always a good idea in my opinion. Makes it easier for both editors and readers. The following is what I tend to use:
For resources (including attack), I try to stick with what's used in game - non-gold resources use multiple icons up to 4, then use [icon][amount] for amounts of 5 or greater. I'd say any time resources are mentioned, the icon can be used (whether production or costs). I'd probably stick Health in this category too - both on fragile and non-fragile units.
EDIT: Actually, I tend to write health as [icon][amount], generally without using words. No idea why. 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For keywords without numbers, my favourite option is [icon][keyword] (for example BlockerBlocker).
For keywords with a number, I'll stick with a similar approach: [icon][keyword] [amount] (for example LifespanLifespan 4). Pjoelj 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New Grandmaster set?[]

As I was looking edit the Antares I noticed the Grandmaster set in-game had changed, it is no longer made of the same units. Does anyone know the name of the new one? VicoV (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Template for outdated information[]

I think it would be useful to have a template like {{outdated}} that would say something like "This page might not be up to date with the latest changes". Point being to add this to all affected pages every time a patch comes out, and remove it once someone actually went through the article and corrected any outdated information. -MedarPrismata (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that, especially considering I can't seem to be able to find updated unit panels. The official site at still uses the outdated unit panels, and I'm not sure if it's at all possible to nick them from the game itself. -LtGleepGloop (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quick one: {{Out of date}}. OOeyes (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, a fresh import of new data should be coming in the next couple of days. The person who runs the bot for that is temporarily unavailable, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew it is coming soon. OOeyes (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I guess we're doing it today after all. >.> OOeyes (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Clicked" instead of "Assigned"[]

Throughout the wiki, I've seen the word "assigned" use to mean "clicked." I don't know what the developers' term is, but I suggest that we use "clicked." "Clicked" is more intuitive, and "assigned" usually implies that there is something to be assigned to.

I agree on using "Abilityclicked" or "AbilityAbility" rather than "assigned". VicoV (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"Assigning" is used in some places in-game (mainly messages such as "Cannot unassign (unit) as (resource) is being used"), but I believe the tutorial, as well as most players, refer to it as "clicking" units. I'm fine with either myself, but I suppose "clicking" would be easier for most readers to understand. Pjoelj (Talk) 07:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Defense redirect link[]

As the Defense page are not really what people are looking for as an explanation of Defense, do you think we should move Defense to Defense phase and redirect Defense to Defend yourself? VicoV (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can kind of agree with moving Defense to Defense phase, but I think the act of defending is important enough to have an article of its own, rather than just redirecting to Tips. Pjoelj (Talk) 07:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it's worth more than just a tip. We're working on this with VicoV. Auxeras (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Phases of the game[]

This applies to the following three articles:

As far as I see it, there are only two phases in Prismata: the Defense Phase and the Action Phase. During your turn, you must first defend your opponent's attack, then take your actions. Breaching is NOT a phase: it as an action you are allowed to take during your Action phase if your total attack power exceeds your opponent's Defense. This is why you are allowed to breach first and then buy units.

If you were breached during your opponent's last turn, you skip your Defense Phase.

In addition, "Purchasing Units" and "Using Abilities" are not "subphases" per se. You do not have to, say, purchase units first and then use abilities. Like breaching, these are simply actions you may take during your action phase.

What does everyone think? I'd like to reorganize these articles to reflect the above.

That sounds like a good change, go ahead! Auxeras (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I took the original idea from Dave's article here The Prismata AI: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bots, see under "Dealing With a Large Number of Actions" about 2/3'rds of the way down the page. This was early and things were sort of messy back then and some others had started a couple different overlapping topics trying to explain the game mechanics so I made it this way to try to bring order based on what Lunarch had put out about how they think about the game (granted this is from an AI perspective). I always wanted to get back and tidy/expand the articles as there is a lot that can be written about strategy, but I've been busy with work and just getting back into the game now. I'm not really opposed to your idea.--NNUMskull (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Main page update[]

Hello. I've put up a draft of a main page re-layout at User:OOeyes/Prismata_Wiki. It's an update using the new styles and templates I'm currently using on new wikis. This draft mostly has the same links as the current page, omitting the base set links and a couple others while adding more Prismata-related external links. I'd like to use this time to gather opinions on any other link changes/additions/removals that should be made. OOeyes (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

With the lack of input, I've just gone ahead and moved the current mockup over the existing main page. Still feel free to make suggestions, though. OOeyes (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)