Curse

You can't see me · Oct 13, 2007, 02:36 AM // 02:36

I really don't see much point to that. It's not like they're blatently overdone, the abreviations are no shorter than about the maximum of seven words. No offense, but I'd like to see Arenanet's focus on larger problems *Cough* Loot Scaling...

Saphrium · Oct 13, 2007, 03:24 AM // 03:24

Well, i know a lot of the old skill descriptions are not revised because it was not a common knowledge to what is a condition back then. Now I think we can revise a lot of them to fit better with the system.

But I still like to point out that a lot of the skill descriptions uses specific words for a reason. For example, "foe suffers" also means it is armor ignoring, "you deal" or "you inflict" is not armor ignoring unless otherwise mentioned.

Aethon · Oct 13, 2007, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saphrium

Well, I know a lot of the old skill descriptions are not revised because it was not a common knowledge to what is a condition back then. Now I think we can revise a lot of them to fit better with the system.

But I still like to point out that a lot of the skill descriptions uses specific words for a reason. For example, "foe suffers" also means it is armor ignoring, "you deal" or "you inflict" is not armor ignoring unless otherwise mentioned.

This could be part of the reason why there are so many people running around who don't know how to play the game very well. The knowledge that "foe suffers" is armor ignoring, for example, cannot be uncovered in the normal course of the game except by accident, otherwise they have to go to a fansite. And by Arena.net's own words, only a small fraction ever do the latter.

So I suppose, not only should they be fixed to reflect what they actually do, but they should also be more verbose in what they do.

I Phoenix I · Oct 13, 2007, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Apply Poison Preparation. For 24 seconds, foes struck by your martial weapon attacks become Poisoned for 3...13 seconds.

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

The problem with that is the description of "martial weapon".

Quote:

Martial weapons are weapons that cause non-magical, physical damage per default (not modified with an elemental damage prefix weapon upgrade), as opposed to spellcasting weapons.

It would mean elemental damage from a bow or something would not cause Poison.

zwei2stein · Oct 13, 2007, 09:52 AM // 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Phoenix I

The problem with that is the description of "martial weapon".

It would mean elemental damage from a bow or something would not cause Poison.

Err, no, it means that martial weapon have default physical damage when not modified by upgrade.

Martial weapon is good description.

Lagg · Oct 13, 2007, 01:00 PM // 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

I really don't see much point to that. It's not like they're blatently overdone, the abreviations are no shorter than about the maximum of seven words. No offense, but I'd like to see Arenanet's focus on larger problems *Cough* Loot Scaling...

The skill descriptions simply lack polish. And this lack of polish could be easily tuned up by having a community effort dedicated to it.

No need for ArenaNet to spend any time at all doing this (except copy/paste the end results).

Do not underestimate the power of a dedicated community.

We can do a lot more than just whine. The Wikis are an excellent example of that.

Of course, ArenaNet needs to greenlight this first, or we might as well be doing it all for nothing.

Also bear in mind that we are by no means altering any skills or game mechanics, we're simply clearing up their descriptions. Nothing more.

Heck, we could almost do it in TexMod, though the skill descriptions are not textures but actual text, I reckon.

But you see where I'm getting at.

Loot scaling, the example you cited, is a game mechanic, a feature and working exactly as ArenaNet intended it.

It's part of Guild Wars' code and not something we should have any access to.

If your post was simply an excuse to whine about Loot Scaling, go do it somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Loot Scaling either, but let's try and focus on things we can improve as a community.

Ephidel · Oct 14, 2007, 09:38 PM // 21:38

This is a well-written idea, and a good argument too. I've been playing this game since Prophecies and Deep Wound giving less benefit from healing is news to me (unless I just forgot, but that was still years ago).

CHunterX · Oct 15, 2007, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Bloot ritual:

Sacrifice 17% maximum Health. For 8...13 seconds, target touched ally gains +3 Energy regeneration. Blood Ritual cannot be used on the caster. - there is clear wording for that "target other ally"

Target other ally is used for so many other spells, its fine how it is.

Gigashadow · Oct 15, 2007, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHunterX

Target other ally is used for so many other spells, its fine how it is.

/head implodes.

That is the entire point of being consistent; the same wording is used to mean the same thing everywhere possible. You are advocating using different wording everywhere "just to be different", which is the exact opposite of what would actually make sense.

iridescentfyre · Oct 15, 2007, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Err, no, it means that martial weapon have default physical damage when not modified by upgrade.

Martial weapon is good description.

I agree completely, except for the fact that half the community would read that and say, "OMG WUTS A MARSHULL WEAPON LOL"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restore Condition

Elite Spell. Remove all Conditions (Poison, Disease, Blindness, Dazed, Bleeding, Crippled, Burning, Weakness, and Deep Wound) from target other ally. For each Condition removed, that ally is healed for 10...58...70 Health.

Gee, thanks for the list. Now I know what things are conditions.

Ekelon · Oct 15, 2007, 05:43 PM // 17:43

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

Quote:

A fiery phoenix rises at your location, striking adjacent foes for 7...91 fire damage, and flies out to your target, exploding on impact. This explosion strikes for an additional 15...75 fire damage.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

iridescentfyre · Oct 15, 2007, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

I have no problem with stuff like that, because there's no redundancy in that description.

I remember about a week after I started, being a noob W/E (with 20 energy...) and being so disappointed that my 15-energy "fiery phoenix" was just a pretty basic looking fireball.

Saphrium · Oct 15, 2007, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aethon

This could be part of the reason why there are so many people running around who don't know how to play the game very well. The knowledge that "foe suffers" is armor ignoring, for example, cannot be uncovered in the normal course of the game except by accident, otherwise they have to go to a fansite. And by Arena.net's own words, only a small fraction ever do the latter.

So I suppose, not only should they be fixed to reflect what they actually do, but they should also be more verbose in what they do.

A lot of these consistency things are left uncovered, which I think is great for separating casual players from players who likes to do a little digging for themselves, after all it is an example of skill>time. In order to gain quickest access to information, you have to learn the lingoes and standards.

Giving another example, I would have never realized how powerful and convenient UNIX system is until I started to learn it. If I didn't take the time to learn it, I would still stuck in Windows GUI world for the next decade. Then again how many Windows users would realize that?

Actually I still need a little learning curve to get used to "martial weapon", but I think it is a great modification and I will adapt to it eventually.

ADD: I hope that the "poetic" description should be separated from "technical" description, for anyone who want to read the lores and where-it-comes-from of [skill]Bonetti's Defense[/skill], they can do it. For pvpers, "poetic" description doesn't help in the intense pvp environment.

Lagg · Oct 15, 2007, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

I think skill descriptions need to be more specific, not shorter descriptions. Stuff like phoenix's description.

This is what I like. It makes it so much less boring to read, A fiery phoenix rises at your location... is much better than taking it out. For many people playing guild wars is about to technical stuff, the statistics. To me, it's the actual game and enjoying the MMORPG for all it's environment and graphics and even descriptions.

I completely, absolutely, totally, wholeheartedly agree.

But pick ONE system.

Don't have some skills written out completely and then others just stating what it does.

Either have all skill descriptions Romantic, like this:

Dismember. This fierceful axe blow dismembers your enemy, causing massive injury and a Deep Wound for xx seconds.

Or have all skill descriptions Rational, like this:

Dismember. If this attack hits, target foe suffers from Deep Wound for xx seconds.

But that's only moving the problem, since you'll have to romanticize the skills that are rational already.

For example, Remedy Signet, which is now simply: You lose 1 Condition.

You'll have to change that to something along the lines of: This Signet ring cures you of a physical or mental ailment.

The knife cuts both ways.

All I want is uniformity, whether romantic or rational.

Yanman.be · Oct 15, 2007, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Eh what about addin additional lore to skills...have a switch in options...Stuff like bonetti's defense could have an entire story...galrath slash, grenth's balance, etc... basically all of the nice-named skills?

Longasc · Oct 15, 2007, 09:07 PM // 21:07

I think people should not forget, it is not about romantic or rational, it is about clear and concise skill descriptions.

Some are very longish, unclear or ambiguous. And the uniformity that Lagg mentioned is not there either, especially for the older Prophecies skills.

Nevin · Oct 15, 2007, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Why not simply everything to basic common terms like...

Interrupt, Condition, Block, etc etc..

Then have each basic "term" underlined and highlighted like a link on an internet browser. Click it and the definition of the term comes up.

blakecraw · Oct 15, 2007, 09:31 PM // 21:31

My biggest issue with skill descriptions is when it says I begin bleeding for xx seconds, when in fact I begin bleeding at one point in time, and I suffer from bleeding for an amount of time. So, sever artery should read:

If this attack hits, target foe suffers from Bleeding for 5...21...25 seconds.

I also agree w/ the op that descriptions need to be as concise and consistent as possible. Otherwise wouldn't a fiery phoenix count as one controlled minion? Or at least trigger soul reaping : )

Sleeper Service · Oct 15, 2007, 09:41 PM // 21:41

"...other foe.." and "...other ally..." in text make it hard to know just who they are referring to a foe of "them" or of "you" (thus making it a "ally").

can they just not put everything from the viewpoint of the PLAYER, ie: anything not on my team is HOSTILE. If its not on your team and not hostile then its not affected.

As for Conditions perhaps a "Expanded" mode that can be dis/enabled explaining what these do would be nice. That and "flavor text" for skills when using "concise" mode.

In all honesty i cant understand how they got it wrong so many times, the people who come up with these skills CLEARLY play(ed) MTG, and MTG has it pretty much down perfect. why did they not use the same system ? arrogance?

an example of CLEAR rules + flavour text:

the image has not been updated on site yet, it will now say : Flying, first strike, lifelink (Whenever this creature deals damage, you gain that much life.)

HawkofStorms · Oct 15, 2007, 10:05 PM // 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

"...other foe.." and "...other ally..." in text make it hard to know just who they are referring to a foe of "them" or of "you" (thus making it a "ally").

I agree. Hexes like Shame and Guilt take a while to understand (stuff that targets foes and then affects when that foe targets a foe/ally). Is that foe/ally the foe/ally of the hexed foe or my foe/ally?