TV Tropes Org

Forums

Deadlock Clock: 4th Feb '13 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [54]
1
 2 3

Duplicate Trope: Full Set Bonus and: Set Bonus get usage counts

Sum Dum Gai
I would advocate keeping the latter as the full article because it has a clearer title and (at cursory scan) appears to be more fleshed out, but, well, they both exist.
(Avatar taken from Spamusement; used with permission)
If I remember correctly, the YKTTW agreed these were two separate tropes.

One is about some sort of bonus one gets when they have all of a set—such as putting all three of a set of trading cards in play, and it allowing you to summon a fourth. Quite possibly, they can all be completely useless until combined.

The second is about a set of things that each have their individual abilities, but having all of them means that they possess synergies that exponentially increase their effectiveness. Even having all of them working individually will never be as powerful as all five in combination.

Lord of Castamere
I would still merge the two because the concepts are too similar and the names are not indicative of what each one does. We can just make them one of those tropes that have several types (two in this case).
Instead, I have learned a horrible truth of existence...some stories have no meaning.
Merging would be a horrible idea, because we'd have to create a "Type 1"/"Type 2" dynamic where the two are completely different tropes and will need heavy context in every example to justify why it fits in one Type and not the other.

 5 Spark 9, Mon, 21st May '12 2:38:09 PM from Castle Wulfenbach Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Gentleman Troper!
I don't see what's so different about the two. In the first case, you get a bonus if you have the full set, and the individual pieces are weak; in the second case, you get a bonus and the individual pieces are strong.

That's a subjective division, and it's not really relevant to the trope anyway. The point is that you get a bonus if you have all of them.
Special trousers. Very heroic.
No, it isn't the point. Your summation was overly simplifying both concepts.

In Set Bonus, by having a set, you gain some sort of reward. Like, "Collect all X, and win a free Y". That's a Set Bonus. The reward need not be related to the individual pieces in any way at all.

In Full Set Bonus, each individual item by itself contributes to a greater whole when all of them are brought together. This is significantly different because it's about symbiosis and synergy, creating a whole that renders each of its parts moot. A Dismantled MacGuffin separated into a suit of armor which makes you a Physical God when the whole set is worn, or a set of cards that create an Instant-Win Condition when all of them are in play.

They're two completely different tropes. Or, that's how it was discussed in YKTTW.

edited 21st May '12 4:15:24 PM by KingZeal

Lord of Castamere
And are those two definitions so different? My opinion is that they are not, and need merging (the post-merge trope description can talk about the two possible types). Anyways if many people agree that they deserve to be two separate tropes, I would vote for a rename instead. The current names make them look like duplicates.

edited 21st May '12 4:22:01 PM by Anfauglith

Instead, I have learned a horrible truth of existence...some stories have no meaning.
I'm not seeing the difference either. Most examples are going to be a matter of interpretation as to which is which, depending how important you think the completion bonus is compared to the individual items.
 
 9 Spark 9, Mon, 21st May '12 4:59:53 PM from Castle Wulfenbach Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Gentleman Troper!
[up][up] Precisely.
Special trousers. Very heroic.
Dragon Writer
I would support a merge, but under the title of "Full Set Bonus" because that's much clearer. "Set Bonus" by itself means a bonus for having more than one item from a particular set, but if the trope is (mostly) about having a full set, the FSB title wins.

edited 22nd May '12 9:05:05 AM by Stratadrake

The differentiation is only a matter of degree.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
I don't think having a bonus for some items is a separate trope, though, so I'd go with the broader name. Plus, most of the examples are the same. You get a small bonus for 3 pieces and a big bonus for all five or something.
 
Dragon Writer
As titles go, I also keep misreading "Set Bonus" - my mind constantly interprets it as "set" (adjective) applied to "bonus" (noun), instead of "set" (noun) compounded with "bonus" (noun). So on reflection, IMHO they should both be merged but under a completely different name. Preferably like "Same Set Bonus", or if we want to value wordplay over ease of use, "Same Set Synergy".

edited 22nd May '12 8:46:17 PM by Stratadrake

 14 lu 127, Tue, 10th Jul '12 7:43:41 AM from the Forest of Thorns Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
Clocking as inactive.
小さく揺れた向日葵
 15 Xtifr, Tue, 10th Jul '12 1:50:03 PM Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
I support a merge. This is definitely a case of The Same but More.
"Existential Despair" is an oxymoron.
 16 ccoa, Thu, 12th Jul '12 2:37:31 PM from the Sleeping Giant
With Mod Hat On
Time for the bonus crowner round. Who will take home the million tropies?
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Have we established that "Full Set Bonus" is the common term? Also, there are plenty of examples that only require multiple items from a set, not a full set.
 
Not as far as I know. Should be Set Bonus if merged, IMO.


OMG, this is not a crowner option...

Set Bonus has a strong overlap with Full Set Bonus: both are about how carrying multiple items of a same set gives you a power that carrying one item does not. We suggest merging the two under Full Set Bonus (which is the off-wiki name for this phenomenon).

For one thing, I shouldn't have to read to the end to see what I am voting on. For another, crowners are on what to do, the options are verbs, like Cut or Redefine or Purple People Eater. Not "we suggest". "We" who? Votes are not signatures on a petition. For another, that "option" is all about how "merge" is the obvious choice; it is very biased. Should be just "Merge? Y/N." Maybe some other details.

edited 12th Jul '12 4:01:40 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
 19 Septimus Heap, Thu, 12th Jul '12 3:57:12 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Another Wizard boy
Google gives far more Set Bonus hits, and it has a pgae on World of Warcraft wiki

 20 Spark 9, Thu, 12th Jul '12 3:57:58 PM from Castle Wulfenbach Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Gentleman Troper!
[up] It gets more google hits, and in "set bonus" the word "set" can be taken as a verb. That said, I have no strong opinion one way or the other about which name to prefer.
Special trousers. Very heroic.
 21 Earnest, Thu, 12th Jul '12 6:06:21 PM from Monterrey, Mexico Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Happy puppy
Full Set Bonus has 46 wicks and 97 inbounds, while Set Bonus has 29 and 1 respectively.

Not a terribly large number either way if we decide to merge and redirect wicks, but in site FSB seems more known.

What if I think a merge is a good idea but that name is not?
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
I don't like merging under Full Set Bonus either, though I do support merging them in some fashion.

The issue that I have is that if we merge, we're considering cases where collecting three artifacts of equal power might cause the "point" value, if you can call it that, to increase say... 1, 4, 10, and not just 1, 2, 10, which is what the "Full" part is implying (namely, that you only get the bonus if you have all the items). If so, is there not an internal subtrope where you get partial bonuses for having a fraction of the set?

But if we allow this separation, then we might as well just not merge at all.

No, it is all one trope. How many pieces you need for a bonus is not a subtrope. With some sets, you get an extra bonus for each over one; sometimes you get a little bonus for some pieces and a big bonus for all of them; sometimes you get no bonus unless you have the full set. It is all Set Bonus.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Dragon Writer
Full Set Bonus is too specific for the overall definition after merge.

At the same time, I just can't parse "set bonus" correctly so I'd like to see an extra word just for clarity, e.g. Same Set Bonus.

edited 12th Jul '12 9:05:28 PM by Stratadrake

Page Action: Set Bonus
12th Jul '12 2:20:41 PM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Set Bonus has a strong overlap with Full Set Bonus: both are about how carrying multiple items of a same set gives you a power that carrying one item does not.
Total posts: 54
1
 2 3


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy