Curse

Kakumei · Jun 06, 2006, 11:59 AM // 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

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

Except that Obsidian Flame isn't affected by Mantra of Earth and doesn't trigger Storm Chaser. It's not earth damage, it just happens to be in the earth line.

fallot · Jun 06, 2006, 01:02 PM // 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

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

Obsidian Flame would be the exception then. Every single Warrior, Ranger and Assassin attack skills' +damage ignores armor but this isn't specified in the skill description. Similarly every Necro and Mesmer skill that deals unspecified damage is armor ignoring. It would be more consistent to remove the armor ignoring statement from Obsidian Flame rather than adding it to Crystal Wave.

Kakumei · Jun 06, 2006, 01:20 PM // 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallot

Obsidian Flame would be the exception then. Every single Warrior, Ranger and Assassin attack skills' +damage ignores armor but this isn't specified in the skill description. Similarly every Necro and Mesmer skill that deals unspecified damage is armor ignoring. It would be more consistent to remove the armor ignoring statement from Obsidian Flame rather than adding it to Crystal Wave.

You're right, I was looking at it from the wrong angle.

NatalieD · Jun 06, 2006, 07:17 PM // 19:17

What would also be nice is some convenient, easy-to-notice in-game resource that explains things like what it means to be fleshy, how lifestealing differs from damage, what a condition is, and so forth. Then there would be no need to clutter up skills with explanations of the mechanics they're using.

lyra_song · Jun 06, 2006, 07:26 PM // 19:26

In game glossary would definitely rock.

Physical vs Elemental vs Lifestealing vs Critical hits, etc.

Muse of Shadows · Jun 06, 2006, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

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").

Last I checked, this would be another skill wording in need of correction/revision. You can only be under the effects of one stance at any given time, meaning by default, it can only remove a maximum of one stance at any given time. If anything, this should be worded closer to Wild Blow - If Wild Blow hits, any "Stance" being used by your target ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LifeInfusion

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.

If you believe that Magic the Gathering has 3,000 cards, then you started playing the game 2 weeks ago, or stopped playing it 10 years ago. With the exception of core sets and basic lands, the vast majority of cards printed are not re-prints, but new cards altogether, although sometimes they make a card identical in all ways except name to an already existing one…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakarr

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.

Life Stealing is not damage or healing, and is therefore not affected by anything that relates to either effect. This is actually one of the few consistent things in regards to how skills work out of what I usually use. How it works is it removes said amount of life from the opponent and transfers it to you. One of my favorit things is using vampiric touch on an SB’d 55 monk in randoms. Skill, not spell so SB doesn’t protect, and life stealing, so they die instantly. They think I’m hacking usually. Soul Leach works wonders against random 55’s as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallot

Every single Warrior, Ranger and Assassin attack skills' +damage ignores armor but this isn't specified in the skill description.

There was a discussion about this a short while back. Damage modifiers from attacks do not ignore armor. The reason it seems like they do is because the game applies the damage to its calculations after effects of armor are resolved. The poster of that thread thought it made warriors do powerful. In fact, if it was applied before armor calculations, and therefore included in them, it would make warriors even more powerful, as it would increase the damage dealt to squishies. In regards to another poster, I believe that Conjure Element spells function the same as damage modifying attacks.

Now in regards to damage types, I have noticed that there are damage types and sub-damage types. Physical, Earth, Lighting, ect and piercing. I believe the jitte specifies bludgeoning damage, but I cannot remember and cannot check right now. Other than that, I don’t recall ever seeing anything in the game regarding bludgeoning damage or slashing damage (if there even is slashing damage). Piercing damage is specified on pick axes, but not on bows, where it is most predominant.
The weapons in this game should all include exactly what type of damage they do. Bows should list piercing damage, hammers should list bludgeoning, and if slashing damage exists, axes and swords should list slashing damage. If slashing damage does not exist, it should be added. This however, as far as I know, is only important in regards to piercing damage on a couple skills such as Whirling Defense. It would still be nice to have even if it does not have any in-game effect.

Make skill descriptions streamlined and consistent:
/signed

Create an In-Game encyclopedia of condition types, types of damage, ect.
/signed

Include all forms of damage types weapons and skills do
/signed

Do away with skill descriptions on your skill bar after you leave a town/outpost
/maybe

Any other good ideas on the same topic presented here that I have missed or come after my post
/signed

inscribed · Jun 06, 2006, 10:32 PM // 22:32

The obsessive compulsive, nit-picking collector in me likes this idea very, VERY much. There was something that had always bugged me about the wording of some of the skill descriptions, but could never quite point it out. You hit the nail on the head.

twicky_kid · Jun 06, 2006, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Any MTG player would fully agree with this thread. WotC takes great time and care to word their cards correctly and consistant with previous editions.

Anet needs to follow the same guidelines about wording. Too many times have the discription of a skill not work like the description or its completely OMITTED *cough dark fury*

Dark fury reads nearby range but is really compass size. It used to function at nearby range but was changed and nothing in the updates about it. It also has a 50/50 chance of failing <5 blood. That is really important about how the skill works but is no where in the wording.

Its not like it takes a lot of time to clean up some text on a skill and make an update. Somethings people ask of are very difficult to pull off but not this.

EagleEye812 · Jun 06, 2006, 11:59 PM // 23:59

You're right about mend ailment, but Rotting Flesh can only target Fleshy Creatures.

SasquatchTimeToDie · Jun 07, 2006, 12:12 AM // 00:12

No wonder GW is getting so messed up. Half the community is dead set on having the Anet team focus on the big picture, and the other half wants them to focus on the teeny weeniest of details...

Truly, everything revolves around the two warring Factions...

Kakumei · Jun 07, 2006, 01:39 AM // 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleEye812

You're right about mend ailment, but Rotting Flesh can only target Fleshy Creatures.

Poison and Disease can only affect "fleshy" creatures--this is part of the Conditions, and not specfically a limiter of Rotting Flesh. It has no place being on that particular skill and no others.

pork soldier · Jun 07, 2006, 01:56 AM // 01:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkyn sei

Sorry but , who cares?

QFT - I'd rather they spend their time on important things (like per-character build templates) instead of debating whether skill text is elegant or not.

I think wikipedia needs more copy editors, if you'd like to contribute to copy editing debate I'd suggest going there.

myword · Jun 07, 2006, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

My main problem here is the inconsistency.

you're not the only one who has a problem with it, unfortunately with other more glaring changes needed to be made, this problem seems more pedantic rather than something that needs attention. majority of the players are now familiar with the skills, hence they aren't bothered by skill descriptions as much as new players would be.

Muse of Shadows · Jun 07, 2006, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by myword

you're not the only one who has a problem with it, unfortunately with other more glaring changes needed to be made, this problem seems more pedantic rather than something that needs attention. majority of the players are now familiar with the skills, hence they aren't bothered by skill descriptions as much as new players would be.

I am shure quite a few people here, myself included, would be willing to re-write the skill descriptions. Even dealing with full-time job, family issues, ect, I find it highly unlikely it would take more than a week, if even that long. After that, unless those working at ArenaNet are increadably crappy at organizing their code, I would be supprised to see it take more than an hour to update the existing skill descriptions.

If anyone is particularly picky, re-writing the skill descriptions could become a prodject for those of us who use GWG, enshuring (in theory) that the updated discriptions are accurate, consistant, ect.

A few of the other things, such as the in-game encyclopedea of crap people may need/want to know, would be a bit more complex to implement, however still would not be difficult.

I saw in another thread someone mention that it seems ArenaNets priority for updates is - easiest comes first. If true, this should be at the TOP of the list.

Kakumei · Jun 07, 2006, 05:03 AM // 05:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by pork soldier

QFT - I'd rather they spend their time on important things (like per-character build templates) instead of debating whether skill text is elegant or not.

I think wikipedia needs more copy editors, if you'd like to contribute to copy editing debate I'd suggest going there.

Templating them on GuildWiki, useful resource as it is, doesn't actually accomplish anything--unless the guy at Anet in charge of skill wording actually reads GuildWiki and would take those templates and implement them.

So I post here about it to see whether this is a legitimate concern in the eyes of other players. Hence the nature of a forum. I don't know where it says in the rules that all threads made must be interesting to everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muse of Shadows

If anyone is particularly picky, re-writing the skill descriptions could become a prodject for those of us who use GWG, enshuring (in theory) that the updated discriptions are accurate, consistant, ect.

This idea occurred to me--actually to go through and template every existing skill, and lay them out for Anet to see, and perhaps even utilize. I would be very interested in such a project.

Stabber · Jun 07, 2006, 05:49 AM // 05:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This idea occurred to me--actually to go through and template every existing skill, and lay them out for Anet to see, and perhaps even utilize. I would be very interested in such a project.

No option but to just do it:

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWi...kill_templates

All the player skills with their descriptions as of today. Edit/standardize away!

fallot · Jun 07, 2006, 05:58 AM // 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muse of Shadows

There was a discussion about this a short while back. Damage modifiers from attacks do not ignore armor. The reason it seems like they do is because the game applies the damage to its calculations after effects of armor are resolved. The poster of that thread thought it made warriors do powerful. In fact, if it was applied before armor calculations, and therefore included in them, it would make warriors even more powerful, as it would increase the damage dealt to squishies.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you just said, could you word this differently ? And a link to said discussion would be nice as well.

Edit: What I said was that +damage on Attack Skills ignored armor, which is true. I think you're talking about something else. Executioner's Strike will always deal +42 damage at 16 DM, regardless of target armor.

Pan Sola · Jun 07, 2006, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muse of Shadows

There was a discussion about this a short while back. Damage modifiers from attacks do not ignore armor. The reason it seems like they do is because the game applies the damage to its calculations after effects of armor are resolved. The poster of that thread thought it made warriors do powerful. In fact, if it was applied before armor calculations, and therefore included in them, it would make warriors even more powerful, as it would increase the damage dealt to squishies.

Actually, assuming teh squishy is wearing 60 armor, damage dealt would only be increased if the warrior has weapon mastery greater than 12. At exactly 12 (and assuming warrior is level 20), the armor effect exactly cancels out.

Quote:

Now in regards to damage types, I have noticed that there are damage types and sub-damage types. Physical, Earth, Lighting, ect and piercing. I believe the jitte specifies bludgeoning damage, but I cannot remember and cannot check right now. Other than that, I don’t recall ever seeing anything in the game regarding bludgeoning damage or slashing damage (if there even is slashing damage). Piercing damage is specified on pick axes, but not on bows, where it is most predominant.
The weapons in this game should all include exactly what type of damage they do. Bows should list piercing damage, hammers should list bludgeoning, and if slashing damage exists, axes and swords should list slashing damage. If slashing damage does not exist, it should be added. This however, as far as I know, is only important in regards to piercing damage on a couple skills such as Whirling Defense. It would still be nice to have even if it does not have any in-game effect.

I'm really confused here. Every single hammer, bow, axe, sword in the game I have seen so far specifically say they deal Blunt, Piercing, or Slashing damage.

Could you possibly be playing using a different language setting, and that particular localization left out the damage type? I know the English interface definitely has it.

Lasareth · Jun 07, 2006, 08:24 AM // 08:24

I was almost positive that the skill mentioned ignoring armor last I looked at it, and suprise, it seemed to have been removed for some reason. However, Tenai's Crystals, the Crystal Wave Factions counterpart, has armor ignoring(ness) in its description properly. They're the same skills, yet they have two different descriptions?

I believe this is an unintentional mistake that Anet made an update or a few ago.

Kakumei · Jun 07, 2006, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

No option but to just do it:

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWi...kill_templates

All the player skills with their descriptions as of today. Edit/standardize away!

Oh nice. I suppose I'll get on that.