Anet, your templating... - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

05 Jun 2006 at 15:01 - 1

...could use a bit of work. Okay, a lot. Factions has only compounded this problem. Now I cannot honestly be the only person concerned about this--especially when I see so many threads "what does this skill do? the description is confusing." A problem easily solved with proper templating--just look at M:tG.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'll provide a couple examples.

Let's look at Crystal Wave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal Wave

Foes adjacent to you are struck for 10...82 damage, but are cured of any negative Conditions.

Cured? Negative Conditions? On no other skill will it say "cured" or describe Conditions as "negative"--are there any positive ones? To contrast, we'll look at another skill that removes Conditions. Mend Ailment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mend Ailment

Remove one Condition (Poison, Disease, Blindness, Dazed, Bleeding, Crippled, or Deep Wound) from target ally. That ally is healed for 5...57 health for each remaining condition.

There. Remove. Not "cure", and it's just "Condition". Though the Condition list leaves out Burning and Weakness for some reason. And why even list the Conditions at all? Why have the list on a few condition removal skills, but not all (Extinguish and Draw Conditions don't have them, for example)?

Another problem with Crystal Wave--the damage ignores armor, but the skill doesn't list it as such, as it does with Obsidian Flame. Why the inconsistency?

Crystal Wave, properly templated, would read as follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal Wave

Foes adjacent to you are struck for 10...82 armor-ignoring damage. Remove all Conditions from those foes.

Admittedly, this is an awkward skill to write out, as it has a unique effect--doing something both positive and negative to the enemy--but key differences are the addition that the damage ignores armor and the use of "remove" rather than "cured".

One more example.

Let's take a look at Rotting Flesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotting Flesh

Target fleshy creature becomes Diseased for 10...22 seconds and slowly loses health.

Why all the unneeded description? For contrast, we'll see another skill that does nothing more than inflict a Condition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enfeeble

Target foe suffers from Weakness for 5...17 seconds.

There. Simple, straight, to the point--there can be no confusion about what Enfeeble does. It causes Weakness. That's it.

Rotting Flesh, properly templated, would read as follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotting Flesh

Target foe suffers from Disease for 10...22 seconds.

Now if I'm honestly the only person this bothers, I'll be very much surprised.

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

05 Jun 2006 at 15:08 - 2

But rotting only triggers on fleshy creatures, nonfleshy are immune to disease. Thus this is somewhat helpful to prevernt you using the wrong skill on things.

I'm not really too bothered... I find the condition text to be more elegant in its current forms.

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

05 Jun 2006 at 15:11 - 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

But rotting only triggers on fleshy creatures, nonfleshy are immune to disease. Thus this is somewhat helpful to prevernt you using the wrong skill on things.

I'm not really too bothered... I find the condition text to be more elegant in its current forms.

A skill that causes Bleeding, such as Sever Artery, doesn't specify that the opponent has to be able to bleed--though you certainly get the big red message when it doesn't work. My main problem here is the inconsistency.

Origami_Master

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2005

05 Jun 2006 at 15:12 - 4

Hey, at least the Area of Effect sizes have been standardized. Those were a nightmare. There's still a few off like Rodgort's Invocation ("Nearby" rather than "In the Area" if I remember right).

Arkyn sei

Academy Page

Join Date: Oct 2005

UK

Blood on the worlds hands

N/Mo

05 Jun 2006 at 15:27 - 5

Sorry but , who cares?

The Lich Ranger

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Feb 2006

Home

Children Of Orion

Mo/Me

05 Jun 2006 at 15:32 - 6

This seems kinda pointless....

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

05 Jun 2006 at 15:38 - 7

Oh I'm sorry what was I thinking I meant to make a thread about how much Factions sucks and how Anet screwed me out of my money at least that way I would have been like everyone else

lyra_song

Hell's Protector

Join Date: Oct 2005

R/Mo

05 Jun 2006 at 16:02 - 8

I agree Kakumei, a LOT of skills need to be rewritten. Unfortunately some skills seem to state the obvious, because of LCD when it comes to common sense.

Retribution

Academy Page

Join Date: May 2006

R/W

05 Jun 2006 at 16:04 - 9

This thread will give Anet another reason to show how much "progress" they're making with fixing Factions when they're really just ignoring whats important:

Fixed skill descriptions of every inconsistent skill
Renamed Chitin Fragments to Shitin Fragments
Gave Shiro minipet chaos axe

Draxx

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2006

England Baby!

05 Jun 2006 at 16:04 - 10

this is the most picky thread i have ever read, ive been reading alot of them latley.

and my god... find something intresting to comment on. 0_0

Chicken Ftw

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: May 2006

05 Jun 2006 at 16:14 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draxx

this is the most picky thread i have ever read, ive been reading alot of them latley.

and my god... find something intresting to comment on. 0_0

lol? Have you stepped into Sardelac lately? I'd rather see the skill descriptions updated than half the silly ideas in there. Something interesting to comment on... like what, "zomg this guy's a jerk let me put him on gwg haha"? FYI, I did find this topic interesting...and very true. Instead of jumping on the "wtf lame topic" bandwagon, read it first, and see just how true it is. <.<

Reworded, consistent skill descriptions please.

Stabber

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2005

Plane of Oblivion

Sigilum Sanguis [keep]

Me/W

05 Jun 2006 at 18:53 - 12

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/List_of_skill_anomalies

Feel free to add anomalies you have observed.

Matsumi

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Mar 2006

05 Jun 2006 at 18:55 - 13

I've been somewhat confused by alot of the spell descriptions also, just like in the mend ailment one for example. So, is burning and weakness not "removed" then? If they are, then why aren't they listed as "conditions" if there is a list? There's quite a few other spells (which I can't think of off hand) that kind of leave some things unanswered, or open to experimentation to find out.

GUE Tech

Academy Page

Join Date: Sep 2005

05 Jun 2006 at 20:01 - 14

I am with you. I can't believe that people are so quick, to look down an a valid thread such as this. Perhaps they use cookie cutter builds, and don't need to know what the skills actually do.

We now have a lot of duplicate skills, now add inconsistent descriptions, and multiply that by the number of chapters they plan to rush out. What a mess.

More than making it difficult to play, I think it makes it harder to design creative builds. I would appreciate it if they could make a manual with detailed game mechanics.

Getting off topic... Just like the shocking hilt, in guildwiki it is assumed that it might have armor penetration because it is linked to air magic, but does anyone really know? Remember the knights armor debacle?

I am not really complaining, but how hard would it be for them to clarify things a little.

Stabber

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2005

Plane of Oblivion

Sigilum Sanguis [keep]

Me/W

05 Jun 2006 at 21:04 - 15

To be fair to Arena Net, they have been much more consistent and systematic in their skill descriptions for Factions. Consistent to the extreme in some cases such as Wild Strike, which mentions losing "1 stance" (though, now that I think about it, it should say "at most 1 stance").

The only glaring issue is with their conflation of "teleport", "shadow step" and "return" with Assassin skills, which collides with other teleport skills in the game.

LifeInfusion

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

in the midline

E/Mo

05 Jun 2006 at 21:35 - 16

As a M:tG player converted to GW player, I think the same kind of consistency should be implemented in GW. I am saying this not because it needs to be "simple" but because it helps with identifying the similarities in skills and their usage.

MtG has over 3000 cards. If they did not have such a system you would be pretty hard pressed when making decks. GW Factions has 300+ on top of 454 (+res/cap) from Prophecies. We are slowly going up in the number of skills.

It helps with comboing skills if you can understand what they do at a glance instead of guessing because the text is ambiguous or wordy (removing a condition should not list all the conditions since conditions have a clearly marked :"Condition." when you have one).

For crystal wave (also Teinai's crystals), anyone who has not used the skill or bought it from the trainer cannot tell it removes conditions from the ENEMY. Some other skills carry the same abiguity like the Asasssin skills. Shadow step is the same as teleport.

Disease, bleeding, poison don't need "fleshy creature". If they don't have flesh they can't be conditioned with those.

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

06 Jun 2006 at 02:47 - 17

I appreciate those who support and agree; while I could understand some could see this as "nitpicking", honestly I cringe every time I read some of these skills.

Hell, I'd be glad to do the job myself, if they'd be used.

Phoenix Avenger

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Mar 2005

Wisconsin

Eternal Knights

E/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 03:12 - 18

I agree with the OP. Not only are these confusing skills descriptions annoying, they can also mess up new players getting used to playing GW. More consistant skill descriptions can only do good, and no harm.

Lepton CFd

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2006

Pantheon of Shadows [dei]

Mo/Me

06 Jun 2006 at 03:15 - 19

I don't get why there are people flaming this post...it makes a good point. Skills descriptions should definitely be clear and concise. Please fix this ANet!

However, with your example of Rotting Flesh, I think that they "fleshy" part needs to be left in there (though they leave it out of other skills that require fleshy targets), but they can definitely throw out the "slowly loses health" part.

Jabilo

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Mar 2006

England

Science Faction

Mo/

06 Jun 2006 at 03:25 - 20

It would be nice if there was more consistency in the skill listing to help avoid confusion. I think you can figure out what the skills do from the text but it does seem like they have over complicated some of them. It is a bit picky, but if all it takes is to change the text in a couple of files I can't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be sorted out easily. If they can add weapons to mini pets that don't even use them, then I'm sure they could update a few of the skill descriptions.

Wrath Of Dragons

Burninate Stuff

Join Date: Aug 2005

New Mexico

E/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 03:34 - 21

there is one thing about crystal wave you have wrong. It is unnecessary to specify armor-ignoring damage. why? because, whenever the game doesnt specify a damage type, it is automatically armor-ignoring.

Quote:

are struck for 10...82 damage

is correct.

Quote:

are struck for 10...82 EARTH damage

is incorrect

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

06 Jun 2006 at 03:47 - 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

there is one thing about crystal wave you have wrong. It is unnecessary to specify armor-ignoring damage. why? because, whenever the game doesnt specify a damage type, it is automatically armor-ignoring.

is correct.

is incorrect

Obsidian Flame specifies that its damage ignores armor. Why on Obs Flame, and not Crystal Wave?

Inconsistency.

arcanemacabre

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Feb 2006

North Kryta Province

Angel Sharks [As]

06 Jun 2006 at 03:49 - 23

The OP has a very good point, and it's something I've noticed about GW from day 1. People say "What's the point? Who cares?" but I say think about this: A few chapters from now we will more than likely have a couple hundred skills for each class... if the description text is not standardized/templated, it will become very hard to tell certain skills apart by the way they're worded. It will be very confusing and time-consuming to form builds. Hell, it already takes too long to create 'just-the-right-build'.

The warrior skills are ones I find the most amusing... where they actually describe what some of the conditions do in the description... I think we know what they do by now, thanks.

salaboB

Academy Page

Join Date: Apr 2006

06 Jun 2006 at 03:56 - 24

Don't forget these inconsistencies:

Spellbreaker: "For 5...15 seconds, enemy spells targeted against target ally fail."

Obsidian Flesh: "For 8...18 seconds, you gain +20 armor and cannot be the target of enemy spells, but move 50% slower."

Shadow Form: "For 5...17 seconds, all hostile Spells that target you fail and all attacks against you miss. When Shadow Form ends, lose all but 5...41 Health."

Now, you could think these would do the same thing regarding spells, but you'd be wrong. Two of them do the same thing, to such an extent that trying to target a foe that has Shadow Form on receives the message "Spell failed. Target is protected by Spellbreaker" (A rather sad little bug) Note that they still have different wording from each other, even though an identical effect is used!

As well, spells targetted against you failing and can not be targetted means this: If the spell fails, it still takes energy. If you can't be targetted, it takes no energy. This makes obsidian flesh inherently weaker than the other two, but looking at the description you could easily not notice that distinction because the wording is so similar and ArenaNet's been so careless in other skill descriptions.

I agree, a more precise dictionary needs to be applied so people will be able to tell exactly how a skill will behave just by reading its description.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

there is one thing about crystal wave you have wrong. It is unnecessary to specify armor-ignoring damage. why? because, whenever the game doesnt specify a damage type, it is automatically armor-ignoring.

Conjure Lightning: "For 60 seconds, if you're wielding a lightning weapon, your attacks strike for an additional 1-13 lightning damage." Armor ignoring, but it has a damage type.

Oddly enough, Crystal Wave used to specify that it ignored armor.
Old description for Crystal Wave: "Foes near you are struck for 10-82 damage, but are cured of any negative conditions. This spell ignores armor and magic resistance." Sadly, they removed it.

Red Locust

Site Contributor

Join Date: May 2005

06 Jun 2006 at 04:20 - 25

Quote:

Originally Posted by salaboB

Don't forget these inconsistencies:

Spellbreaker: "For 5...15 seconds, enemy spells targeted against target ally fail."

Obsidian Flesh: "For 8...18 seconds, you gain +20 armor and cannot be the target of enemy spells, but move 50% slower."

Shadow Form: "For 5...17 seconds, all hostile Spells that target you fail and all attacks against you miss. When Shadow Form ends, lose all but 5...41 Health."

Now, you could think these would do the same thing regarding spells, but you'd be wrong. Two of them do the same thing, to such an extent that trying to target a foe that has Shadow Form on receives the message "Spell failed. Target is protected by Spellbreaker" (A rather sad little bug) Note that they still have different wording from each other, even though an identical effect is used!

As well, spells targetted against you failing and can not be targetted means this: If the spell fails, it still takes energy. If you can't be targetted, it takes no energy. This makes obsidian flesh inherently weaker than the other two, but looking at the description you could easily not notice that distinction because the wording is so similar and ArenaNet's been so careless in other skill descriptions.

What is the inconsistency here? Both spellbreaker and shadowform cause spells to "fail", whereas obsidian flesh prevents you from being the target of enemy spells.

Spellbreaker is described as "spells targeted against target ally fail" because it can be used on any ally, whereas shadowform reads "spells that target you fail" because it is only usable on yourself. Whether it says "enemy spells that target you" or "hostile spells targeted against you" is hardly something worth arguing over, because they both mean the exact same thing.

Cacheelma

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jun 2005

The Ascalon Union

Me/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 05:33 - 26

Conclusion about Spellbreaker: The spells failed=The caster loses energy when he/she tries to cast spells on Spellbreaker's target.

In the case of Obsidian Flesh, the caster can't even cast any spell on the target AT ALL. He/she doesn't lose any energy if he/she tries to.

And yes, I'm a M:tg player myself. And I'd been hoping against hope that Anet will fix this one day. Until Factions came out and nothing changes...I lost hope.

One note about "Mend whatever" spells with condition listing: I think I've read from somewhere that the conditions that are not in the list can't be remove by that spell. And Mend Ailment/Mend Condition have different condition listings.

Can anyone confirm that?

Lurid

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Mar 2006

Mo/

06 Jun 2006 at 05:38 - 27

/signed

It makes sense to make their descriptions more accurate and more consistent. Even though it is nitpicking, i'm partially ECD (not really, just seems like it) so it annoys me.

Raging Pacifist

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Feb 2006

The Ocean Machines

W/

06 Jun 2006 at 05:39 - 28

I think the skills that clarify (such as mend ailment or hamstring), anet created first, and then the wording was never changed.

MadOnion

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: May 2005

06 Jun 2006 at 05:53 - 29

This is actually a very useful thread that needs to be looked at by people higher up. The link provided on guildwiki is great too. This is probably just my own ignorance on the matter, but I think it needs to be straightened out which skills count as a "skill" (are are skills counted as skills or only skills that say "Skill. Blah blah..."). This relates to expertise and the ever so popular touch ranger.

Stabber

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2005

Plane of Oblivion

Sigilum Sanguis [keep]

Me/W

06 Jun 2006 at 06:23 - 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by salaboB

Conjure Lightning: "For 60 seconds, if you're wielding a lightning weapon, your attacks strike for an additional 1-13 lightning damage." Armor ignoring, but it has a damage type.

Are you sure?

dgb

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Sep 2005

Mo/Me

06 Jun 2006 at 06:39 - 31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

there is one thing about crystal wave you have wrong. It is unnecessary to specify armor-ignoring damage. why? because, whenever the game doesnt specify a damage type, it is automatically armor-ignoring.

is correct.

is incorrect

From memory, it does need to specify that it is Earth Damage because it interacts with Storm Chaser and Mantra of Earth.

So it should read takes x...y earth damage. This spell ignores armour.

Wrath Of Dragons

Burninate Stuff

Join Date: Aug 2005

New Mexico

E/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 08:25 - 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgb

From memory, it does need to specify that it is Earth Damage because it interacts with Storm Chaser and Mantra of Earth.

So it should read takes x...y earth damage. This spell ignores armour.

Makes your brain hurt, huh?
and so it would be ob flame, not wave, that needs rewording.
yep. brain hurts

Justafyme

Academy Page

Join Date: Aug 2005

06 Jun 2006 at 09:15 - 33

Heh...so I'm not the only one! I was trying to work on a new build the other day...and some of the skill descriptions seem to require my secret decoder ring (which sadly I left in my other jacket) to figure them out.

And just because it's kinda on topic...
Can we please do away with the skill descriptions once you leave a town/outpost? Hey guess what..I know what the thing does..that's why I put it there. I find it gets in the way when I am trying to scan the mobs...looking for the right target. I don't need a massive wall of text telling me what I already know. Ya, I could use the tab button to cycle through the enemies..but I find it takes longer.

dgb

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Sep 2005

Mo/Me

06 Jun 2006 at 09:21 - 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

One note about "Mend whatever" spells with condition listing: I think I've read from somewhere that the conditions that are not in the list can't be remove by that spell. And Mend Ailment/Mend Condition have different condition listings.

Can anyone confirm that?

Any condition can be removed by either of Mend Ailment or Mend Condition.

Hunter Sharparrow

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

Jeepers Kreepers

R/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 09:57 - 35

When it comes to the ele if a spell ignores armor than it should specify. Take a look at the air magic. All the spell that do damage have 20% armor penetration and they all say so in the description. Cured vs Removed, it really doesn't matter. They are both saying the same thing.

The kind of description you would see when you look at the format used with other spells would be:

"Foes adjacent to you are struck for 10...82 damage, but are cured of any negative Conditions. This spell ignores armor."

As for Mend Ailment not mentioning every condition is probably because those that typed the description in forgot. Is it needed? No. They list the conditions to examplify what a condition is.

Your new to the game and ask "What does disease do?". Taking one look at the spell and you see what it does. "Oh, disease is a degen". Why do some have this added description and why do some don't? Don't know. My guess, more than one person did up the description of the skills.

The only thing that is bother-some is when a spell ignores armor, not adding it to the description.

Sagius Truthbarron

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jun 2005

Animal Factory [ZoO]

A/

06 Jun 2006 at 10:40 - 36

Poor crazy Kakumei.

Hunter. The "Negative conditions" part doesn't belong in the describtion becuase it leaves some room to doubt what it actually does, and if there are actually any existing positive conditions.

But, you know, positive conditions are an idea

shaken_bake

Banned

Join Date: Nov 2005

kentville, Nova Scotia

Temple Of Rebellion

W/Mo

06 Jun 2006 at 10:49 - 37

I agree I have always found that some skills to be confussing it would be a good idea only thing is Anet has alot more important problems to fix at the moment.

Zakarr

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

Finland

06 Jun 2006 at 11:04 - 38

This is very important thread. Guild Wars combat system is very sensitive especially at PvP. Small things like -10 hp, 1 second bad timing, hidden skill effects, 1 inch bad position and other "minor" things can kill you or reduce your/others current potential a lot depending what builds you and the enemy has and how well those builds will be used.

Here is one example from the hidden skill effect:

Vampiric Touch

Skill. Touch target foe to steal up 29...65 Health.

Okay, the skill steals life but the description doesn't say that it will ignore Protective Spirit because I died with 55 hp monk against necro minotaur boss. I don't know if it ignores Shielding Hands and Reversal of Fortune too. Maybe this is one reason why touch rangers are so powerful.

It should say something like this:

Skill. Touch target foe to steal up 29...65 Health. This skill ignores magical resistance.

On the other hand, it does not ignore every protection spell. Very confusing indeed.

off-topic:

I really would like to see skills which ignore all magical resistance. For example Crystal Wave probably could be popular if it ignores any protection spell.

Bale_Shadowscar

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Sep 2005

Manchester, England

New Dragons [NDR]

06 Jun 2006 at 11:09 - 39

I definitely agree. I also think, to help new players, that all the information could be put in some kind of in-game Encyclopedia, where you can look up things such as 'disease'. I know that you can aquire this information in the PvP 'Isle of the nameless', but pehaps an option to see it any time would be good.

/triple signed. Excellent idea.

Therlun

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Aug 2005

06 Jun 2006 at 11:26 - 40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakarr

Here is one example from the hidden skill effect:

Vampiric Touch

Skill. Touch target foe to steal up 29...65 Health.

Okay, the skill steals life but the description doesn't say that it will ignore Protective Spirit because I died with 55 hp monk against necro minotaur boss. I don't know if it ignores Shielding Hands and Reversal of Fortune too. Maybe this is one reason why touch rangers are so powerful.

It should say something like this:

Skill. Touch target foe to steal up 29...65 Health. This skill ignores magical resistance.

On the other hand, it does not ignore every protection spell. Very confusing indeed.

Life Stealing is no normal damage.
It does not start "on damage" triggers, and as you noticed is also not influenced by damage-protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakarr

off-topic:

I really would like to see skills which ignore all magical resistance. For example Crystal Wave probably could be popular if it ignores any protection spell.

Yes!