Talk:Reskins/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Show Page as English

Does anyone know how to do this? I created this page, but it's not showing up as an English language page.MEDUNN 06:33, 13 August 2011 (PDT)

A bot updates that list, but it has done it now seb26 15:20, 13 August 2011 (PDT)

Category

This should really be a category rather than an article in its own right. In most cases, these aren't reskins, but alternate models. Maybe move it to Alternate Models? It just feels weird calling this article "reskin". --SilverHammer 23:30, 16 August 2011 (PDT)

Oh, it's already a category. Alright, I'mma just nominate this for deletion then. Opinions go here. --SilverHammer 23:32, 16 August 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose – page has more info than the category page and is more useful. As it provides this extra info it isn't a duplication or redundant. seb26 23:50, 16 August 2011 (PDT)

 OpposeWhy delete this page instead of the incomplete catagory page?MEDUNN 02:49, 17 August 2011 (PDT)

Cause the only one that's actually a reskin is the Golden Wrench. --SilverHammer 12:08, 17 August 2011 (PDT)

Um, I think you've got the definition of reskin wrong there. A reskin isn't a palate or colour swap. It means anything that has a visual, and possible sound, difference but has the same function. Everything on this list is a reskin. The original and holy macral are too really.MEDUNN 14:09, 17 August 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose - SilverHammer, I created the original category page (which has since been redirected to this page) because I felt that it only warranted a category and not a full article; however, MEDUNN took the work I did and improved upon it greatly with a table, item icons, and even additional notes about the reskinned items. I am convinced it should stay, as Valve will likely continue to release more reskinned items in future updates. ButteredToast 10:14, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

 Info Just to note, by this definition of reskin the Shovel, Fire Axe, Bottle, Fists, Wrench, Bonesaw and Kukri are all reskins of each other. —Moussekateer·talk 10:46, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

I think that calling the base weapons reskins of each other is about as useful as calling hats reskins of each other (save for the Polycount hats); after all, having a reskin requires some kind of prerequisite weapon, and all of these weapons are the first of their kind and were released at the same time. ButteredToast 11:02, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

 Support Adding a pretty table to an article doesn't make it worth keeping. Suggest moving any non-table content to Category:Reskins and leave the "Notes" section to their respective articles. Basically, this "article" is just a list, which is EXACTLY what a Category: page is. coreycubed / talk 10:55, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

By that standard we would be deleting the 'hats', 'misc' and countless other pages for being just lists. This page fulfills the need to diferentiate weapons which have unique stats and those that don't.MEDUNN 10:55, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Holy Mackerel and The Original

Can we have a vote to decide whether or not these are reskins or not. I would say yes as they share the fuction of two other weapons with only visual differences. I know some people say that the original's position makes it better as it's easier to aim, but I would say that that is still just a visual and not a functional change.MEDUNN 04:43, 21 August 2011 (PDT)

I don't think that the Mackerel really counts as a reskin since it counts the number of hits that it makes in the killfeed notification, something no other weapon before it has done. As for the Original, I'm a little divided on the issue, but I think it counts as a reskin since it is functionally similar to the Rocket Launcher. ButteredToast 10:14, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

The two weapons have different attributes attached, so from that perspective they are unique weapons. From a gameplay perspective the Holy Mackerel makes it easier to see when a team mate is being smacked about by a Scout, and the Original fires from a different position. If it fired from the bottom left of the screen would it still be considered equal to the rocket launcher? —Moussekateer·talk 10:19, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

The Holy Mackerel is not a reskin, since it also is part of a set that provides a bonus. That same set using the Bat instead wouldn't function, so therefore it has a mechanical property that the Bat does not, even discounting the kill feed notifications. Similarly, the Original fires from a different position on the screen, changing how a Soldier can use cover. This is also a different mechanical property, and as such is not a reskin but functionally a different weapon. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home

What about the Saxxy and G. Wrench though? They have a unique attribute. Balladofwindfishes 10:30, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

I never included the Golden Wrench or Saxxy because reskins before, though the Saxxy does technically count as a reskin of the Golden Wrench since it duplicates the functionality of the Golden Wrench. ButteredToast 10:39, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

Their unique attribute doesn't have any mechanical effect on gameplay. Over in tabletop gaming land, we call this a "fluff vs. crunch" disparity. Fluff/flavor are things that have no actual effect on the mechanics of gameplay: describing how one wizard casts a spell differently than another wizard still results in the same spell with the same mechanical, "crunch" effects.

Similarly, a golden wrench vs. an iron wrench all inflict the same damage, have the same critical hit rate, and construct the same buildings: the only difference is the texture map and the on-kill attribute of the golden wrench. If a statue'd enemy blocked enemy fire, remained on the map as a new obstacle, or otherwise altered how the game was played in more than a visible matter, then it would indeed be a new weapon. The saxxy is much the same: it possesses the same attributes as the base melee weapon of whatever class is holding it. The only differences arise in how it is wielded and what happens on-kill, neither of which have any mechanical effect on gameplay. As such, it is a 'fluff' difference, rather than the more mechanical difference between, say, a Reserve Shooter and a Shotgun. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 12:27, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

That's all well and good, but compared to other "reskins" we have on the page (like the Maul), it's different. It's a unique, coded attribute. Balladofwindfishes 14:11, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

...with no functional impact upon the game. The Golden Wrench page could be merged with the regular Wrench page and condensed to a singular paragraph, whereas the Frontier Justice is different enough from the regular Shotgun that it warrants an entire page. The Maul has a different kill icon: does that make it different enough from the Homewrecker to warrant calling it a 'unique weapon'? From your statements above, no. And if the Maul is not unique enough to be considered a reskin, neither is the Golden Wrench: it has the same mechanical effects in game. The only difference is the cosmetic result it has on opponents it kills. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 16:30, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

I think this shows that noone here can accurately define what a reskin is. —Moussekateer·talk 16:35, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

DVDV has come up with an excellent set of criteria for defining exactly what a reskin is. I say we frame this discussion of these weapons based on that (see his post below).MEDUNN 10:52, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Trivia

• Some hats were reskins of other hats before being added officially to the game.

This line is debatable in my opinion. The easy way to add hats into the game unofficially is to overwrite the models of other hats. While this can be construed as 'reskinning', it is not usually the authors intention to reimagine the hat being overwritten. You can overwrite any hat. By this definition every class hat is a reskin of every other class hat (apart from the polycount hats) since they are functionally identical. —Moussekateer·talk 10:27, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

I have to agree with Mousekateer on this one; short of the Polycount hats which provided a bonus when the entire set is equipped, changing the models of the hats doesn't really count as reskinning. ButteredToast 10:34, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

The purpose of the trivia was to show the way reskining was used in the creation process. Before the examples were removed the trivia showed how many now unique items began as reskins, Dalokhs bar used to be a sandvich reskins ect, and this applied to headgear to with the example of Madame Dixie first being introduced into the game by Valve as a reskin in the 'Fancy vs Nasty' update. It was meant to show the role reskining has in community related content and how many now unique items began as reskins. However, once the examples were removed the sentences became vague.MEDUNN 09:07, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

But the point is that almost all community contibuted items are not intended to be reskins. The modeller makes the hat and the easiest way to get it in-game is to override the model of another item. For almost all items 'reskinning' is not part of the creation process but part of the distribution process. —Moussekateer·talk 11:47, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Should we add a date added column?

Should we add a "date added" column?

 Nope. coreycubed / talk 07:04, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Does this need a page?

Since it seems we can't decide what a reskin actually is, is it a weapon that merely shares stats (Maul, Fishcake), weapons that have a unique cosmetic effect, but are otherwise identical (Saxxy, Mackarel, Golden Wrench), weapon that share a model (Rocket Jumper), hats that are the same model with unique texture (Ellis' Cap, Athletic Supporter), items with the same UV map (Tomislav, Cappos caper), and so on. ALL of those could be considered a "reskin." Plus, you have things like the Three Rune Blade, which has different voice lines than the Boston Basher... is it still a reskin? And honestly, what purpose does this page serve? A category (which we already had) could serve the same purpose, and be a lot simpler. This just seems like a needless list of items with no real set theme or purpose. Balladofwindfishes 16:44, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

I think it's fine to be honest, the Wiki is here to give useful information about the game, and this table is much more useful than a category, especially for new users who will be the ones wanting to look at it anyway. And I think the definition of a reskin would be a weapon that has identical stats to another. Extra/different voice lines aren't particularly important. » Cooper Kid (blether·contreebs) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (PDT)

Yes what's actually defined as a 'reskin' is currently unclear, but the list does serve a purpose. It is an informative list of weapons that function the same as others, but their outer appearance differs. Simply dumping this and taking up a category means there's less information like which weapons are reskins of what (which can't easily be determined by looking at Category:Reskins). Yes there are a heap of subtypes and special cases and other instances where "reskin" is technically incorrect, but that does not mean we should just stop trying to cover it because it's too hard. Why not split this page into sections? seb26 00:09, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Reskin just seems like such an informal term with no in-game definition (as it isn't used in-game). In the game, the weapons are treated as unique weapons, as if they had unique stats. And if we're going to change the weapon table on the weapons page to lump together weapons with identical stats (which seems to be a popular action), then this article is going to seem less and less valuable. Balladofwindfishes 06:56, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Agreed, this page has outlived its usefulness. Support moving the information to the relevant item pages and leaving them in a Category at best. coreycubed / talk 07:04, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

It really hasn't. A category with a simple listing is lazy and quite unhelpful, considering it doesn't show which weapons are reskins of what, information about when they were added, etc. Not in-game so we shouldn't cover it – this is taking the easy way out again. The definition for the weapons listed on this page is stated clearly at the top, regardless of what discussion is taking place here. As a community guide, we can actually make decisions for ourselves and not have to cling helplessly to Valve every step of the way. seb26 12:17, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

New importance = Greater need for definition

This is my definition of a reskin.

For a weapon to be a reskin of another, they must both

- Be used by the same character (or at least one of the same character if Pain Train etc. gets a clone)

- Be in the same loadout slot

- Have the same damage output in terms of damage/time unit, damage/individual hit, damage/m^2 (different spreads of shotgun for example) and damage output for different distances

- Have the same on-user effects

- Have the same hitbox size(s) and position (original has different hitbox positions initially to the rocket launcher)

- Cause the same amount of damage to the user

- Require the same play style for both weapons

- Have the same taunt effect (amputator is not a clone of bonesaw). Animation for the taunt may be different however.

- Have the same clip size

tl;dr: It does the same thing to both the user and any recipient, and goes about it in exactly the same way

Factors that do NOT change anything

- The texture or model (rocket jumper =/= rocket launcher)

- The UV mapping

- The effects on the dead body after death (Saxxy = Vanilla melee)

- The associated sound files (Frying pan = Shovel)

Does anyone have anything else to add or remove? If not, it should clear up a lot of things on this page. DVDV 00:57, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Well said. » Cooper Kid (blether·contreebs) 04:31, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

I agree with this and the "fluff vs. crunch" definition provided by FaxCelestis. coreycubed / talk 07:04, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

That seems to be a thorough definition of a reskin. We should have this as the guidence for what constutes a reskin and what doesn't.MEDUNN 09:00, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

I don't agree with the Saxxy being an identical weapon to the vanilla melee weapons. A weapon is a collection of things. A model, textures, associated sounds and a collection of attached attributes. The fact that the Saxxy has a 'turn enemy to gold on death' attribute attached would, in my opinion, make it another weapon. —Moussekateer·talk 11:45, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

But the point is that is has an indentical function to the weapons. A cosmetic difference is a reskin difference, a function difference is a unique item difference. Saying that the Saxxy is a unque weapon which isn't like the defaults due to its turn to gold effect, is no different from saying a Flipped Triby with Sunbeams is not the same as a Flipped Trilby and a new unique type of hat, due to its Sunbeams effect.MEDUNN 12:05, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Well bringing another example into this, the difference between the Original and the stock Rocket Launcher is the fact that it fires from the middle. Note that this is only cosmetic because only the user with the Original sees this behaviour. But you would be hard pressed to find people who would say the Original is only a reskin. This is why I find this whole endeavour pointless, we could argue all day about what a reskin is and never agree on a definition. —Moussekateer·talk 12:16, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

That's...not a cosmetic effect, since it changes how you interact with cover. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 12:30, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

But the definition is simple, if the only difference is visual (or a sound effect) then its a reskin. If the difference is a gameplay one than it is not. Whether or not the Original was a reskin would really depend on whether it does allow you to fire differently from cover. I was originally for adding to reskins as I thought it's difference was only a different first-person image, but have subsequently heard it allows you to fire from cover in ways that the rocket launcher cannot do; which would be a function difference and therefore it would not be a reskin.MEDUNN 12:43, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

I hear a random melee weapon being used in the distance. I can't see the weapon, I can't see the class. It's making a sword slashing sound, so I assume Demoman. Wait, he's using the Three Rune Blade! That's a difference in gameplay and how you approach the oncoming noise. The same for the G. Wrench. If you see a gold corpse around, you can judge that a class wielding a melee weapon with stock stats is walking around, an advantage you have over just seeing a regular corpse on the ground. These are minor gameplay elements, but to deny that they don't effect gameplay doesn't make sense to me. Balladofwindfishes 16:25, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

That they affect gameplay isn't being contested. What's being contested is whether or not they mimic another weapon in all functions. Audio, as well as video, is not a function of the weapon and is something that can be 'reskinned'. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 16:43, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

So the Holy Mackarel would therefore be a reskin? Balladofwindfishes 16:48, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

No, since it carries a mechanical difference between the basic bat: that of the Special Delivery set bonus. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 20:07, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

That seems to be grasping for a reason not to include the Mackarel as a reskin. I personally think that any weapon with any sort of unique feature besides the model is not a reskin. So the maul would be a reskin, the Saxxy, Frying Pan, etc, are not. Balladofwindfishes 05:53, 24 August 2011 (PDT)

It's not grasping: there are mechanical differences between the Mackerel and the Bat, while the difference between the iron Wrench and the Golden Wrench are cosmetic. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 08:51, 24 August 2011 (PDT)

You see a dead body on the ground. You don't know who killed it, what class or what weapon. You see a gold statue on the ground. You instantly know the weapon (Saxxy or G Wrench), and you can make a good guess on the weapon (if it's in the backstab pose, for example, it's a spy). That's a gameplay mechanic. The on-hit gold provides an advantage to the person looking at the ragdoll. Balladofwindfishes 06:32, 25 August 2011 (PDT)

The kinds of people who look that far into it won't need this page as they'll probably already know enough about the weapons. A page listing all the weapons which look different but are in essence the same will be useful to new players. » Cooper Kid (blether·contreebs) 07:03, 25 August 2011 (PDT)

If a weapon has a unique attribute coded into it, it shouldn't be considered a reskin. There's no reason we have to make the definition of a reskin complicated and up for debate. We could easily just say "Does it have a coded attribute?" "No=Reskin" "Yes=Unique item". No need for interpretation, just a simple look at the coded attributes. Balladofwindfishes 19:24, 27 August 2011 (PDT)

If the Original isn't going to be considered a reskin because of it being fired in the center (thus changing how it's used in game, most notably with corner firing sentries) then the G. Wrench and Saxxy shouldn't be considered reskins either. That gold ragdoll they leave behind, that can be a game changer when it comes knowing what was used to kill that person. It's one of 2 things. If you are going to consider everything about the weapon EXCEPT what it does do ragdolls, then you're being obtuse about reskins. To expand a little further, if a weapon came out that mirrored the Cow Mangler's stats but it didn't cause the ragdolls to disintegrate, would you call it a reskin? SS2R 19:26, 27 August 2011 (PDT)

Alright, it seemed to be uninimously decided in IRC that the Saxxy and Golden Wrench were not true reskins, and that we should base what a reskin is on using whether or not the weapon has any sort of coded attribute at all. So I removed both of those, and that will probably be how we will judge reskins in the future. Now about those weapons with different sound effects... Balladofwindfishes 09:23, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Hey what are ytou doing we already decided it was if something had a different function or not. You can't juist go somewhere else and decide something else. Those weapons have no functional difference only a cosmetic effect. The original lets you fire rockects from positions you can't otherwise with the standard rocket launcher. You can't just change the rules over a week later and disregard everything else.MEDUNN 10:02, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

It is a little infuriating for you to come back and say, "Oh, we discussed this somewhere else while you weren't present, so we're changing it." This is the talk page, and discussion for this article belongs here. If you've got an IRC log, great. Post it. As of right now, though, I don't really feel this issue's resolved, and honestly I feel a little cheated. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 11:05, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Agreed; even though I frequent the IRC channel, I feel that issues like this should continue to be discussed on talk pages. The IRC channel is popular and accessible, but it's not a substitute for establishing consensus on talk pages, especially over controversial issues. I'd also encourage the editors who make these "unanimous" decisions in the IRC channel to post on the talk page in support of it. As it is, ballad's just the messenger and it looks like he's being heavy-handed with the article, when that's not actually the case. coreycubed / talk 11:28, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

The cosmetic attribute "rules" are difficult to enforce, debatable and are left up to whoever is on the wiki on any given day to add or subtract from. Using the very concrete rules that an item with attributes is a reskin is the only reasonable solution that allows for organization. We shouldn't be the ones that put labels on attributes because everyone's label is different. And it's pretty evident we've not been able to actually decide what's a true cosmetic change or not, so we need to fall back on what we actually have as concrete evidence; a coded attribute. Balladofwindfishes 12:59, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Apprence/sound/effect change = cosemtic = rekins, Function change = not reskin, nothing complecated of difficult about it.MEDUNN 13:05, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

But I (and many others) view a sound and hit effect change to be a function change. This is what I'm getting at. If we say "weapons with identical attributes are reskins" then we have a concrete ground to rule on. If we use your rules, everything is left to interpretation. Balladofwindfishes 13:10, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

But the weapon doesn't function differnetly because of a sound or effect change. There is no difference between it and the default. You can say a player may react differently but that's not a function of the weapon.MEDUNN 13:14, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Statistically, saying they are identical is not being truthful. Their stats are not identical, many of these "reskins" have coded attributes that differ from their "host" weapon. If it has a different stat, that's a different function of the weapon. Balladofwindfishes 13:17, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

that js your opinion though. If I saw a golden corpse I would immediately know what weapon one of the other team had equipped. I've gained information that the normal wrench wouldn't have given me. Your method is subjective while 'different attributes = different weapon' is logical. —Moussekateer·talk 13:22, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

If a weapon has a statistical difference, such as a slower firing speed, then it is not a reskin. That is a key differentiating factor. If you can prove any of these weapons have a function difference and not a cosmetic one (image, sound, special effect) then they will be removed.MEDUNN 13:24, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

The 'information provided' argument is a really bad one in this case, by the way. The three-rune blade and the frying pan also provide information about the weapon being used. Just saying. — Armisael 13:29, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Mousekateer you're talking about a players gameplay strategy not a weapons functionality.MEDUNN 13:30, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

The two are the same thing in this case. - nixshadow (t|c) 13:31, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

This discussion is still on going? Here's some food for thought, aren't the golden corpses mere reskins of corpses themselves? On top of that, what if we get a reskin weapon that can decapitate while its original weapon can not? Since it alters corpses, the weapon wouldn't be a reskin either according to the guidelines that have been supposedly set. -- Hefaistus - talk 13:32, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Yes, that would mean the weapon wasn't a true reskin. Balladofwindfishes 13:34, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

I agree an added kill taunt if a definate function change.MEDUNN 13:39, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Forced indent

To take the conversation in a different direction - why label them reskins at all? It's a definition of opinion no matter how you slice it. Even the name is unofficial. "Reskins." The damage table template indicates whether or not it's identical in damage output. Leave it there, and delete this page. coreycubed / talk 13:33, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

No they arn't they are completely seperate. A function is apparent even if all the weapons were replaced by error signs and all effects and noises removed. If was choosing a Scout bat I could tell an atomizer, sandman and boston basher from the default through function. a saxxy would have no seperate function, so it's difference is costmetic.MEDUNN 13:34, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Coreycubed we already had the delete page discussion and it was decided not to. see Seb26 comment in that section.MEDUNN 13:36, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

The Saxxy has a separate, coded attribute. It's a very simple definition that doesn't need any interpretation. Balladofwindfishes 13:50, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Okay, look we're not going to resolve this by stating the same things at each other, let's look at it like this. This page was created, like all other pages on wikis to inform people who did not already have knowledge of its contents. The people who this article is intended for are people who DON'T know what weapons share the stats and functions of others or need a reference to remind them. I can pretty confidently say that this is no-one who is an editor on this wiki. So arguements of what you would do with your recogintion of sound effects or cosmetics are poiitless as you are not the target audience for this article. A new player comes to this article for an easy reference of which weapons they havn't seen before may look or sound different, but don't give the user a passive or active effects and which one (by ommision) do. This arguement should be framed around the point of view of someone who sees a lot of new weapons and needs to know which ones are functionally different and that they need to adapt to. A golden wrench with its special effect should be on this board for the very real reason that it looks so different because those are the type of weapons players need most to be informed about are no different functionally to the defaults. This is why functional difference is the key factor, because any other definition undermines the usefulness of this article to the intended audience.MEDUNN 13:51, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment The Wiki's stated goal is to provide Team Fortress 2 players with information that they will find useful to further their understanding of the game. Doesn't say those people don't have to be editors. All of us use this as a resource, and to be honest (since we're injecting POV into the discussion) I doubt "new" players will even find this article in the first place, nor would they have a reason to even read it. It only exists for the sake of completeness and because if it doesn't, some poor soul is going to come along and try to create it because they think we're missing one. coreycubed / talk 13:55, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

You couldn't be more wrong and your comment is spiteful and unhelpful.MEDUNN 13:57, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

But they do have a difference, stating they do not is more confusing to new players than implying the weapons are identical. It's implying something that isn't true. I mean, I can "The Black Box is identical to the Rocket Launcher, except it heals on hit and has one less rocket" and that's what the Golden Wrench boils down to. "This weapon is identical to the Wrench, except it turns enemies into gold on death" Compared that to the Maul, "This weapon is identical to the Homewrecker" which is true. It is identical, it is a reskin. Statistically it's identical. But the Golden Wrench is statistically, not identical. Balladofwindfishes 13:58, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

and I didn't say they didn't ahve to be editors. I said that its target audience were people who were uncertain of which weapons functioned differently to others and which were merely cosmetic changes. I was assuming this probably wasn't anyone who was editing a games wiki.MEDUNN 14:00, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

But that's your opinion, that they're merely cosmetic changes. Balladofwindfishes 14:01, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

The Maul is the same as the homewrecker except the visuals. c wut i did thar? — Armisael 14:00, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

Because the golden death is enmtirly cosmetic but because it is not obvious that it is to new users, is the precise reason that it needs to be shown in this article to diffentiate it from real function difference like the Black Box.MEDUNN 14:02, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

But if we're showing differences then... it's not a reskin and shouldn't be on the page. Balladofwindfishes 14:04, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

We are not "showing differences' we are trying to show new users which special effects have statistical differences behind them (eg Cow Manglers glowing beams are functionally different) and which are special effects which don't change the weapons perfomance (eg. Golden Wrenchs golden death)MEDUNN 14:07, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

So, now that everyone has had a chance to argue their point and state their ideas, it will be best if we simplify things a little bit:

Please leave a simple comment after this message stating your opinion on the matter of reskins. Do not reply to any other comments. Thank you. -- Firestorm 14:42, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment I believe that the term itself "reskin" implies that it uses the same model and has the same attributes. If the item is functionally different, it is not a reskin. -- Firestorm 14:42, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment I think a simple definition of "If it has identical attributes it's a reskin" and we go with that. That would mean the Maul would be a reskin, but the Golden Wrench would not be (as it has a coded attribute). Trying to distinguish between a "real" attribute and a "cosmetic" attribute is not going to work. This discussion has shown so far that such a guideline would not work because too many people have different ideas of what a cosmetic attribute is. Balladofwindfishes 14:54, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment If a weapon causes the same things to happen when equipped, on hit, on death and displays the same in the death notifications, it is a reskin. If it doesn't do any 1 of those things, it is not a reskin. SS2R 14:58, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment If an item has the same mechanical, game-affecting functions (damage, attack speed, range, damage fall-off, particle spread, equip slot, status effects, set bonuses, clip size, etc.) but has differing appearance and/or non-mechanical/non-game-affecting functions (corpse gibbing/golding/decapitating, sound effects, model, mapping, handedness, taunt, kill icon, etc.), it is a reskin. ==Fax Celestis _talkcontrib^home 15:07, 29 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment If a weapon operates exactly the same as something else (as the Maul and Postal Pummeler do) with the same attributes, then it is a reskin. If it has any additional functional attributes (such as the Golden Wrench does), then it is not a reskin. ButteredToast 08:38, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment Weapons with the same attributes that deal identical damage to weapons that have already been released are reskins. The Maul, Three-Rune Blade and Postal Pummeler meet this definition. Saxxy and Golden Wrench do not (though Saxxy would be considered a reskinned Golden Wrench). Note also that I support finding a different word (if there is one!) besides "reskin", as this implies it's simply a new texture applied to an existing item. Also support avoiding the definition entirely and leaving the "Identical to:" section in individual weapon articles. coreycubed / talk 08:49, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment I find it ridiculous to exclude a "reskin" weapon because of a mere death animation. According to this, a reskin that gibs, that causes bodies to evaporate or that can decapitate while its original can not, would all be unique. Why? Because it can be distracting? Every weapon can distract once or twice, even its original. Because it can give you information about what weapon the enemy uses? Only if you don't play with the killfeed. They might influence the gameplay, sure. Every little thing does, even that beer bottle they have on the battlements on 2Fort. But it is negligible, as opposed to, for example, the Original, which actually forces you to interact with cover differently. I agree with the idea of changing the term and I disagree with excluding weapons that merely change death animations. -- Hefaistus - talk 09:19, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment If I think of the term 'reskin', I think the only difference would only be the physical appearance of the item in question, hence items like the Lugermorph, the Maul, and the Headtaker. Items that are in any way changed otherwise from their counterparts, such as a new death animation, or different origin of projectiles from the player, should not be considered under the category of reskin as while some attributes may have minor impact, they possess different attributes nonetheless. --Xenaero 09:30, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment Considering the three-rune blade a reskin and not the gwrench is ridiculous, in my opinion. Why is a different death animation more important than a different sound? A reskin should be defined as a weapon that differs only by its viewmodel and worldmodel (or complete model, w/e). — Armisael 10:08, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

And the kill feed icon, of course. — Armisael 10:33, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

 Comment Well, I'll just say my two central points quickly, as I've already covered them in too much length here already. Firstly, A reskin should be defined as any weapon that has no functional difference from its original counterpart. Apperance,sounds and special effects do not change the fact that the weapons function is identical in all aspects. A 'golden death' special effect does not change a wrench's fundamental function any more than a spinning pink heart effect changes a hat's fundamental function or makes it something different to a hat.

Secondly, and more importantly, the target audience that this page is meant to help are people who need to find out which weapons share identical functions. Arguements about experenced players being able to tell from sounds or visual effects what weapon is being used misses the point. The kind of person who will be using this article will see special death animations and naturally assume that weapon itself must be different. This article shows the difference between special effect producing weapons which do have a functional difference (eg the disintergration animation for the bison and mangler) and those which are merely a cosmetic visual effect which don't alter the weapons function in any way.MEDUNN 10:49, 30 August 2011 (PDT)

Festives

Should the Festive weapons be added to this page? Technically to the game they're reskins, they have a unique ID in the schema, and they have their own backpack icons. They don't have their own page though, but each of the links could just go to the festive weapon page, that's not that big of a deal. So should they be added? Balladofwindfishes 16:59, 28 December 2011 (PST)

 Support Have unique ID = Must have in the page =D Hinaomi 12:55, 10 March 2012 (PST)

Is the Rainblower really a reskin?

It has a unique taunt effect, like the Amputator, which is not a reskin. Balladofwindfishes 20:23, 4 July 2012 (PDT)

That's what I was thinking.Desacabose 20:31, 4 July 2012 (PDT)

 Done removed Rainblower entry. --Kincyr (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (PST)

Final Hard Definition of "Reskin"

This is it, hopefully there is no discussing this any further. Imagine a bot designed to go through a course with each weapon. In this course, it tests all of its aspects. It tests the taunt, it tests the damage, the spread, the range, etc. Now, suppose this bot, if given the same weapon, does the course exactly the same a second time. This bot does not "notice" any cosmetic effects, e.g. the golden corpses, the Holy Mackerel's "FISH KILL", or anything else. The bot only "notices" the physical environment around it. Therefore, this bot is not psychologically affected by weapons, only physically. Therefore, the bot goes through the course the EXACT same way with the Holy Mackerel as it did with the stock Bat. However, it doesn't go through the course the exact same way with the Original as it did with the stock launcher because in this course, designed to test every physical aspect of a weapon, the Original made a slight difference due to the launching position of the rocket. Therefore, the bot did not go through the course the exact same way, pixel for pixel. Gameplay differences with taunts count, for example the Rainblower is not a reskin as it has a tauntkill which the stock Flamethrower lacks. The Amputator is also not a reskin due to the taunt. If the original weapon had a tauntkill that the reskin lacks, it is still not a reskin, as there is a physical difference due to the lacking of the taunt. The Solemn Vow is a reskin because of the lack of non-pyshological gameplay difference. Again, if the player was not sentient, they wouldn't act differently whether using the Solemn Vow or stock saw.

I'm not 100% sure if item set differences count under this definition, although I'm leaning toward it not counting. This point is open for debate among you guys.

tl;dr: If the weapon only makes a psychological difference on the players in the game, it is a reskin. If it makes a "hard", physical difference, it is not a reskin. Therefore, it is true that the golden wrench, mackerel, etc. make psychological differences on players, and therefore alter the gameplay, but they make no immediate physical difference, and are therefore reskins. The definition of reskin supposes that the person using it is not sentient of his or her surroundings.--CLM 11:00, 8 July 2012 (PDT)

AWPer Hand missing

It seems that the AWPer Hand is missing from the stock Sniper Rifle reskins section. As I am new here and do not know how to add it, this is just a heads up for someone who can.

Coolioguy18 11:31, 9 November 2012 (PST)

 Done thanks » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 15:57, 9 November 2012 (PST)

Golden Pan missing

The Golden Frying Pan is missing, and I'm bad with formatting wikis. Can someone add it to the list?

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by StoneCrowbar (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 13 December 2013

should I condense the list?

asking for everyone's opinion here: should I condense the list of Reskins so instead of listing every Festive/Botkiller/Australium weapon, each category gets one entry under All Classes?

something like:

All classes	---	Festive weapons	Weapons they're based on
		Botkiller weapons
		Australium weapons

if not, should I at least condense each list of Botkillers to Botkiller Scattergun, Botkiller Rocket Launcher, etc., rather than listing every form of Botkiller? --Kincyr (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2013 (PST)

Apoco-Fists

Are they technically reskins? They do have different stats but everything else is the same. All the other reskins are just the same in stats... but why is this listed as one if it has a special stat? Should I remove it? ( want to do it myself :> ) ErnieTheGreatest (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (PST)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.