Curse

Nevin · Mar 14, 2008, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver

*gives Anet a blank look*

Was that needed? I never saw anything relating to that in Sardelac!

Well, Traditional wins for me. I don't want to have potentially important pieces of information left out of my skill descriptions. Out of ALL the things to go and "update"....

There have been small threads a plenty about "fixing up" skill descriptions.

kartmaster · Mar 14, 2008, 03:36 AM // 03:36

I chose concise. I feel some of the descriptions were overly wordy. The shortened descriptions are quick and to the point.

TheGuildWarsPenguin · Mar 14, 2008, 03:39 AM // 03:39

I chose traditional. Concise grays out parts of skills that have an end requirement.

Velise_Snowtorm · Mar 14, 2008, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danax

Next up: Concise Mission Objectives!

Objective: Kill evil dude.

Lol

I'm dubious about Concise. As others have said, I actually like the extra detail about the skills. I guess at this point I should already know what exactly they do, though. *shrug* Whatever.

creelie · Mar 14, 2008, 04:15 AM // 04:15

I like concise. Matches the way I think about the skills.

arcanemacabre · Mar 14, 2008, 04:15 AM // 04:15

This is really good for certain skills such as [skill]Dismember[/skill], [skill]Sever Artery[/skill], and [skill]Restore Condition[/skill]. Wordy and redundant skill descriptions FTL. Of course, they could've just fixed those few, and come up with a more consistent wording for similar effects. I do rather like the "(xx seconds)" at the beginning of the descriptions in concise for durations. That's really nice for quickly checking what the attribute breakpoints are.

TheLordOfBlah · Mar 14, 2008, 04:38 AM // 04:38

people have been bitching about shitty descriptions for a while now, redundant old descriptions like evis and RC are good examples.

Saphrium · Mar 14, 2008, 05:06 AM // 05:06

I think this is one of those "need-to-be-there" update, it really makes the game much easier to learn and understand; I mean if you spend more than 15 sec to read a mesmer skill description + the time to understand it, that is really "arcane knowledge".

Bryant Again · Mar 14, 2008, 05:11 AM // 05:11

I love these kinds of updates, since they're not "needed" but just add a bit more craft to the game. I'm very happy with it : )

Redfeather1975 · Mar 14, 2008, 05:16 AM // 05:16

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

SOI
2,0,5
3 spell use illusion.

arcanemacabre · Mar 14, 2008, 05:20 AM // 05:20

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, I could see this:

Enfeeble
5,1/4,5
(31 Seconds) Weakness.

Life Siphon
10,2,2
(22 Seconds) Him 3 degen. You 3 regen.

Noel Hope · Mar 14, 2008, 05:22 AM // 05:22

I kept traditional.

If someone had created a thread in Sardelac Sanitarium suggesting the implementation of shortened skill descriptions, it would have been /notsigned all around.
People would have said, "A-net has much more important things to work on right now, wait for GW2!"

And yet, everyone seems to be happy with using the new "concise" skill descriptions.

... Oh, the irony.

FoxBat · Mar 14, 2008, 05:35 AM // 05:35

In general I like the new templating, but I wish all the relevant info was preserved. For example, it's typically not clear what is a targeted enchantment and what is a self-only untargeted enchantment.

Redfeather1975 · Mar 14, 2008, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Haha, I could see this:

Enfeeble
5,1/4,5
(31 Seconds) Weakness.

Life Siphon
10,2,2
(22 Seconds) Him 3 degen. You 3 regen.

LiSi
1022
22s-3hhim+3hyou

or maybe

0110
10110
01110010001

arcanemacabre · Mar 14, 2008, 05:38 AM // 05:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noel Hope

If someone had created a thread in Sardelac Sanitarium suggesting the implementation of shortened skill descriptions, it would have been /notsigned all around.

There was this thread back in January, and linked to the info on wiki. While it is more on conflicting/wrong/misleading text in descriptions, it does address "sensationalized skill descriptions." Anet has been aware of these issues, and maybe they just decided instead of fixing all these problems, they'd just change all descriptions to this "concise" system. Not sure which sounds like more trouble, honestly.

The only reason I could see that they would want to spend time doing this is that there will be a similar system in GW2. They can gauge everyone's reaction to it, and maybe spot trouble areas (such as the duration at the beginning of skill descriptions) to tweak before testing. Just my guess, though.

EDIT: This is funny, here's something I said in that thread... kinda spooky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

I would have loved two different descriptions: one more narrative, the other more precise like we have now. Maybe an option to toggle either, too. Too late now, though, it would simply take too long to come up with 1200+ new skill descriptions to fit them in, but it's something to hope for in GW2.

maraxusofk · Mar 14, 2008, 05:52 AM // 05:52

pointless update. id rather they fix glitches instead of this. better use of time ftw?

Bryant Again · Mar 14, 2008, 05:52 AM // 05:52

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.

/signed!

Sever Artery-Bleed-4A

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

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

Arkantos · Mar 14, 2008, 05:59 AM // 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by maraxusofk

pointless update. id rather they fix glitches instead of this. better use of time ftw?

Another person who seems to have missed the 8 bugs they fixed in this update, and all the other bugs they've been fixing recently.

You don't know what ANet are doing. You don't know how many people are doing what. Therefore you have no right to say they need to use their time better.

Sure, many people consider this a pointless update. But at least it's an update. ANet don't need to fix bugs. They don't need to change over a thousand skill descriptions. Still, they do. For all we know, 2 people could have changed the descriptions. 15 could have changed them. They could have been working on them for a week. They could have been working on them for 3 months. Since we don't know, we shouldn't say they need to spend their time better.

Yawgmoth · Mar 14, 2008, 06:06 AM // 06:06

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.

Unlucky Slayer · Mar 14, 2008, 06:17 AM // 06:17

I barely read the descriptions as it. Usually just read them the first time I come across them.

I went with Concise, because its nice to have the extra space but if I do want to read what a skill does I still can. =)