Curse

Redfeather1975 · Mar 14, 2008, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

/signed!

Sever Artery-Bleed-4A

Searing Flames-Burn 6s, vs. Burn 82-15E

Ooo this is fun...Keep em comin'!

Brambles
NatRit
10/5/60
lvl 1...8...10 spirit/lasts 30...126...150s.
If KD, then -5h+bleed5...17...20s.

Bah, that was actually very hard.

Cacheelma · Mar 14, 2008, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

I'm an oldschool player but I've chosen concise. But I'm not truly satisfied with what the new option offers, the concise wordings could use some more work.

I love the new way of describing triggered effects, like "End effect: ", "Interruption effect: ", "Removal effect: " or "Drop effect: " or some really short and to-the-point skill descriptions (like Life Sheath "Negates xx damage" - it's 2 words and a number! nothing more needed! wow)

But most importantly there are things I don't like about the new wordings and which still need some work:

*Some skills descriptions are actually longer than traditional!
Single word "Creature" got replaced by "ally or foe".
The word ~other~ (ally) was removed and a whole sentence "Cannot self-target" got added. See Arcane Mimicry or Aura of Stability for example, seriously, see them yourself!

*Half Range Spell - looks like a new type of spell, nonsense!
This half range thing should be at the end and grayed out (consistently with other negative effects/conditions), or should read: "Spell. Half Range. Texttext...".
Or maybe change other skills to be consistent with this new templating, make for example Heal Party read: "Party Wide Spell. Heal for 69." (LoL j/k)

*Extra unneeded words added in concise descriptions, sometimes misguiding = wtf? Example - Pain Inverter - concise description uses the word "attack" while the skill affects damage not only from attacks but skills and spells aswell.

*Too big parts of key skill functionality description grayed out, the main part is often far away from how the skill really works - the most important phrases being hidden grayed out at the end. example: Shame.

*Mesmer hexes reducing casting speed still use 2 types of wording - it's either "100% slower casting" (Enchanter's Conundrum) or "Doubles spell casting time" (Migraine). Still it's better than the oldschool Arcane Conundrum with it's "spells cast by ...foes take twice as long to cast"

*There are still inconsistencies in describing the same type of effect on different skills
- example:
Recurring Insecurity "Renewal: if target foe is hexed again",
Mental Block "Renewal: every time an enemy hits you";
but this one is different:
Kinetic Armor "Renewal bonus: cast a spell" - the 'bonus' word and much simplier description - using the standards from above examples it would look like this "Renewal: every time you cast a spell".

*Concise description for Infuse Health is the best example why putting any negative effects of a skill in a separate sentence, grayed out at the end is just wrong.
"Heals for 120% of half your current health...." oh come on!
The oldschool "Lose half your current health. Target other ally is healed for 120% of the health you lost" is far easier to immediately understand.

Still it's a move in the right direction, hope they will make a few improvements though.

This is what I meant when I said this so-called "concise" version isn't really an improvement. Some skill descriptions are now even more confusing and I don't see any consistency in them whatsoever.

A step in the right direction: maybe. But if this is the best you can do and you won't make any further improvement on it: Shouldn't have bothered.

Bryant Again · Mar 14, 2008, 06:23 AM // 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

Brambles
NatRit
10/5/60
lvl 1...8...10 spirit/lasts 30...126...150s.
If KD, then -5h+bleed5...17...20s.

Bah, that was actually very hard.

I'd do Edge of Extinction but I have a huuuuuge headache right now, ugh...

Redfeather1975 · Mar 14, 2008, 06:26 AM // 06:26

Maybe their skeleton crew's director is struggling to find things for them to do.
>What should we do today boss?
Ummmm. There's a ton of lists to go over, but I'm doing other stuff. Ummmmm. Rewrite every description! That's enough to keep busy for a while, right?
>Bleck. *quickly gets it over with*

Sab · Mar 14, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42

I want a lolcat option:

ohai! u can has 75% blok for 4 secund

Juno Onuj · Mar 14, 2008, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

I want a lolcat option:

ohai! u can has 75% blok for 4 secund

haha nice Sab

Arkantos · Mar 14, 2008, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

I want a lolcat option:

ohai! u can has 75% blok for 4 secund

You made my day.

Sjeng · Mar 14, 2008, 12:00 PM // 12:00

pointless. kept original settings. should've spent their time in other needed updates and fixes.

Kumu Honua · Mar 14, 2008, 12:46 PM // 12:46

I love complainers of an update.

Just because you don't think an update is "Required" doesn't mean it's useless, or even that it took time away from your more "Required" updates.

Did anyone stop to think that perhaps this new setting for skill descriptions was created for GW2, but it would work for GW1 so they implemented it in GW1?

Or amazingly enough, perhaps a developer coded the change on his lunch break over months because he wanted such a change, and it WASN'T on the "Required" list, so he did it on his own time?

Developers don't always have things they can code. Sometimes they are waiting for other bits of code from other departments, sometimes they just pound out easy "Spelling error" type mistakes, sometimes they tweak skills.

Just say "Thanks for the update" or "Meh, dun matter to me" and move on. Obviously there are some who appreciate the less verbose skill descriptions and those who like the wordy descriptions. That they made a change that was good for BOTH is a great thing.

pkodyssey · Mar 14, 2008, 12:52 PM // 12:52

Original flavor for me.

I thought they were so busy with GW2. The amount of time they wasted on this could have been spent on, hmmm lets see, a billion other bug and skill fixes.

I think they need to get some focus.

HERE ME ANET!!!
I am watching how you are working and it is greatly influencing my decision whether or not I am going to buy GW2. I suggest you stop dicking around.

/edit
Kuma Honua ---

Thats the kind of stuff that scares me. I appreciate the effort, however there is so much wrong with GW1 that SHOULD be fixed. The fact that the primary staff has abandoned GW1 tells me what type of life GW2 will have. If a GW3 creeps into existence, what will happen to GW2. Seems like an endless loop of bad support.

The "no cost to play" idea is nice in theory, however it can't support the level of update and game refinement that many of the "guru" level players demand.

<---- watches in amazement as my comments drift, slowly off-topic.

prism2525 · Mar 14, 2008, 01:05 PM // 13:05

CONCISE descriptions! This will change the way I see Guild Wars!!!

Balan Makki · Mar 14, 2008, 01:09 PM // 13:09

I like the idea, but have noticed that some could still be much shorter--some are still to wordy.

Orange Milk · Mar 14, 2008, 01:14 PM // 13:14

I kept the old skill descriptions.

Some of the new ones don't provide enough info.

Example: The NEW Withering Aura description says "Target Allies attacks cause weakness" in reallity an in the OLD skill description it says "Target Allies melee attacks cause weakness"

Cause a breif moment of confuse for us as we were setting up yesterday as 2 people had the new and 2 had the old, Looking at the new one would think you could wand weakness on to an opponent.

Uber Mass · Mar 14, 2008, 01:21 PM // 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

I want a lolcat option:

ohai! u can has 75% blok for 4 secund

winthread...

tho i dont see the use of the new skilldiscription... its not very different imo aslong as you understand the skills its all okay

Zaris · Mar 14, 2008, 01:24 PM // 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

I chose concise, but found the difference to be minimal.
Make it shorter! XD

SOI
2,0,5
3 spell use illusion.

haha you made me laugh

Arduin · Mar 14, 2008, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

I kept the old skill descriptions.

Some of the new ones don't provide enough info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

*Extra unneeded words added in concise descriptions, sometimes misguiding = wtf? Example - Pain Inverter - concise description uses the word "attack" while the skill affects damage not only from attacks but skills and spells aswell.

It would be much better in my opinion if Anet just corrected all the flawed discriptions from the original skills. Instead of those we now got:

-Traditional skills with flawed discriptions (which I suppose won't be corrected, because we got concise now).

AND

-Concise skills with flawed (sometimes blatantly wrong to the point where it causes confusion among players) skills, which we now have to report as needed correction.

Set aside which style I prefer, I'd just like the skill descriptions to be accurate .

EDIT:

Jeez the discription from Conjure Phantasm is STILL wrong:

Hex Spell. (x seconds.) Causes -5 Health degeneration.

Minus 5 Health degeneration basically means you get healed when hexed with this spell. Degeneration already implies you are losing health over time, but heaving it being 'minus' means you are NOT losing health over time. It should be:

5 Health degeneration, or
-5 Health regeneration.

EDIT2:

Will they also revert the "I'm suffering from the Bleeding condition!" to "I'm Bleeding!" ?

Issac · Mar 14, 2008, 01:59 PM // 13:59

Stayed with traditional.

360° · Mar 14, 2008, 02:07 PM // 14:07

I don't care, kept the traditional descriptions. Kinda useless to old school players.

Targuil · Mar 14, 2008, 02:32 PM // 14:32

This update is a total joke. Had laughs while reading those.

beregond · Mar 14, 2008, 03:30 PM // 15:30

I kept the old descriptions. I just think it makes more sense to know everything a skill does.