Undecided?[]
The page states:
- Currently, it's undecided whether you can only transform your armor into something you've previously acquired or not, but it's a possibility for the system[1].
While I can't read the German reference, going by what's been said in the preview, it sounds to me like you will have to possess the item itself. It is specifically stated:
- Transmogrification encourages players to hold onto items with sentimental or aesthetic value, and the Ethereals anticipate that personal bag and bank space will be at a premium now that everyone will be hoarding their frilly pantaloons and leather jerkins. In anticipation of this new demand for additional storage space...
Why would transmogrification make you need "additional storage space" with which to hoard and hold onto items, if you don't need to possess the item in order to use it?
If that isn't unambiguous enough, they also explain that:
- The process can be reversed by clicking the undo icon on each item, and then hitting the Transmogrify button once more to save the changes.
Which suggests that not only do you need both items to transmogrify them, but you need both items to change them back, too.
So as far as I can see, you need to have the item. I'd probably change the current description for something like:
- The Transmogrifier, planned for implementation in Patch 4.3, provides the ability to exchange the appearance of your armor and weapons with those of other items. However you must possess and be able to equip both items, and both must be of the same armor or weapon type. Not all items or pairings can be used in the transmogrification process.
I only post this here because I would have changed the page to reflect my understanding of the feature, but didn't want to impose my understanding on a matter that is admittedly not completely clear. What does everyone else think?
PS: my apologies for what may be a slightly OTT post :P -- Taohinton (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, no responses so far, but in the meanwhile the following info has been posted on the forums by blues (reprinted at [1]):
- Quote:
- 1. If we have already had, and destroyed, gear to make bag space in the past. Will there be ANY way for us to avoid having to refarm the gear, or, will closer to release will the "Must have" restriction be changed into something else?
- No, it's necessary to have both the item you want to make look like something else, and the item you're using the 'look' of.
So it seems my reading of the preview was correct - I'm therefore going to change the page as suggested above :)
Finally, I've added the link to the above clarifications, since so many people seem to be left unclear after reading the preview. I don't want to just delete the German link, but I'm not sure if it's needed anymore. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Transmog sets[]
I don't use transmogrification, but I understand that "transmog sets" can be a big part of it. If someone familiar with it could explain the definition of transmog sets that would be great. In particular I'm unclear if the ones on wowhead are defined or named by the game in any way, or are simply assembled from user analysis of the art resources. - jerodast (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- (Transmog) Sets are items that were obviously designed as part of a visual set - most notably the actual sets, Tier or otherwise, but also many BoE greens that share a name (though for some classic sets, some pieces don't really fit), and then there are various sets that aren't declared as such but visually fit together, quest rewards or dungeon drops from a certain level range. Sources may even be mixed, etc.
- Wowhead's Transmog Sets are named by their staff, as far as I know Perculia did the major part of the work collecting them. Some of the names are obvious, Tier and BoE greens already have a "name", while quest/dungeon sets are named subjectively, often after some item or quest that rewards an item on that list. ~ Nathanyel 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I forgot to come back to this page and mention that I did a fair amount of "original research" on wowhead and wrote up as much information as I could glean. Unfortunately your explanation has just reminded me that I somewhat arbitrarily limited the wowhead results to Classic World Sets and my resulting writeup here is biased in that direction. Whoops! I'll work on correcting that but feel free to check my work...
- It was interesting to note that many of the world drop sets were "split" so that you could cut the list of same-base-named items in two - each half would match others in its half, but often each half would also match another name-series' items...which might also be "split"! Essentially you can follow a "chain" of connected items from a starting point, to one with the same base name but a different style, to one with a matching style in a different base name, to one with the same base name but a different style, and so on... Now I want to write something that crawls wowhead and creates a massive web showing all the connections between items by name and visual set :) - jerodast (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
More wiki support for transmog sets?[]
It seems to me the wiki could do a lot more to support identification of visually related items, aka transmog sets. I don't even use transmog but I think the perspective on Blizzard's art design is pretty interesting. You might say the database sites cover this need so it's not our job to document it, but the same could be said for most item listings as well, yet we pull all of them so they can be documented and found here - even literal junk like 
[Intact Basilisk Spine].
I'm not sure if it would be best to have individual pages for each "visual set" or just list visually matching items on each item's page. The naming can be a bit arbitrary, so it is probably inappropriate for this wiki to document names as if they were fact. Even game-defined sets may overlap in creating a "full" transmog set (e.g. Ironfeather Armor and Windhawk Armor)! This suggests against creating individual pages with definitive names and going for the more item-by-item approach. But this would lead to duplicated data. Perhaps templates could be used with an arbitrary naming scheme (allowable since those names are never displayed to the reader) and included on the appropriate items' pages. To be honest this is a low priority for me, especially having no experience with creating templates - I just wish when I used the random article to assign myself a task for the day, there was something more to say about a random item! - jerodast (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, with no template knowledge I don't know if this is possible, but it just occurred to me if some "transmog set" template could be created that simply took a set name as a parameter, and displayed a list of all items that also included the template with that name, that would be a really great non-dupey way to include that info on item pages. - jerodast (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Legion changes?[]
Should the Legion changes be added to the current article?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Probably best to wait until we know more of the details. --
DeludedTroll (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
