Talk:Effect

Discussion
What is the in game use of this term? It would be better to turn this into a description of that rather than deleting it.. - anja   17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Effects do exist ingame. You have an Effects monitor (official name!) where effects are displayed. All effects which can be displayed there are either Skills or those effects which are/will be categorized in Category:Effects. If you want to delete this because it's not a real official term (at least not in its actual definition) then please go through Category:Unofficial terms and tag them for deletion as well. poke | talk 17:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a bit eh, Poke. That category containes community usage words, which generally don't conflict with ingame usage.
 * Since this is for the wiki,m can't you just incorporate it in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Effects? It's for documenting the scope of that article, right?Backsword 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As Poke says, it's used as a proper noun with regard to the 'Effcts monitor'. That documents effects of Skills that has a duration; such as stances and hexes. (But not direct effects, such as damage.)


 * But if you put yourself of the mindset of someone searching the wiki for effect(s), it's entirely unclear what they're looking for. Could be the ffects monitor, but the word is used so much for it's normal meaning ingame, and by the community, that they could be looking for most anything. Thus I'd prefer no page, so their search finds something else, or at least a disambiguation page. Backsword 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We are explaining the effects in the effects monitor that is not covered by skills. I don't really see how that's unofficial enough to warrant it to be only in GWW namespace. I would be fine with a disambig, but no article here would be confusing, imo. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Wiki effects cover things that only deal direct damage, for example. Backsword 12:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? How is Sugar Rush for example or a disguise dealing direct damage? o.O poke | talk 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Fire Dart for an example. Backsword 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fire Dart deals damage, but this article does not cover only effects like Fire Dart. It also covers Sugar Rush and Disguises etc. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We seems to be talking past each other. I was responding to your statement above. "effects in the effects monitor". Backsword 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably mean the damage monitor.. The efects monitor lists enchantments/hex spells/effects.. poke | talk 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Fire Dart shows up in the Damage monitor, but not the Effects monitor. Backsword 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! Why didn't you say that from the start :P I'll check in game just to be sure, I thought it showed in both. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This won't be showed in the effects monitor as it is - strongly seen - casted by the (unselectable) stone statues. But I think we can include them, maybe as a type "trap" including those and the ones from EotN.. poke | talk 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fire Dart is actually a skill. A Trap skill, similar to Monster skills, it is cast by something so it doesn't count as effect.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a skill and has a trigger. All of them are and do. Backsword 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fire Dart is casted by the unselectable enemies, you can even clearly see where those enemies are positioned. And as it does not even appear in the effects monitor, it's not an effect. poke | talk 13:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All skills are activated by something. Fire Dart is just an example, but it's not on any creatures skill bar. That it is not an Effect is just the point I'm making. Poison Spout might have benn a better example, but there is no article. Backsword 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you explain where this occurs? I don't remember that english name. poke | talk 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any swampy area in GW:En should have some. Leaveing from Gadd's is probably quickest. Backsword 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tested that, it's the same thing imo - You cannot walk on the exact point where it occurs, it is as well casted imo.. So I would not say that's an effect.. poke | talk 11:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of unofficial wiki terms here and when I've asked ArenaNet employees for an official term for it they just said to use whatever we think suits best. The move tag is completely unwarranted. As for the term itself, unless a better alternative can be found, I think it's fine. - B e X   09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bounty is in the official terms category, wich is not accurate. Explain that first. Everyone knows what effects are.reanor 11:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be edited to include all uses of "effect" in game, but I disagree with moving or deleting it. --Xeeron 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. poke | talk 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with changing it to reflect ingame usage, as you and Anja wants, is that it would no longer serve it's (presumed) original purpose of defining scope for the aforementioned formating page. (I still think ingame use too ambigious for it to be unproblematic, but that's unrelated.). Backsword 12:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Switched the tagging to Aiiane's disputed template, even if it's not official. Seems to better reflect the current situation. Backsword 12:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the page it says conditions, but you can cast conditions...ie Shell Shock.-- §  Eloc   §  13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you can cast skills which cause conditions, but you cannot cast a condition directly. poke | talk 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Finished?
Can I remove the disputed tag now? poke | talk 16:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, please.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 16:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still factually wrong, Poke. Backsword 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is wrong, so it's the formatting page. We'd have to go back to square one and start a mess about changing the Skill infobox to cover Effects. We need this so we can go on with content work. Fighting this article is clearly doing more damage than leaving it be. If it ever poses any problems, then we'll deal with them.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please say clearly what is wrong in your opinion. poke | talk 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How could a formating page be wrong? Taste in styles are not objective facts? Backsword 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is style too :S[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 12:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how could we change it so it would be right? - anja   13:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Then please answer my question, Backsword! poke | talk 13:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on what we want to document; should we document just the case where it used as a proper noun, or anything a reader might be looking for when they search for "Effect"? (I find documenting formating guides in mainspace a bit absurd, but that's a third option.) Backsword 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We should document "anything", but also include the definition of what effect means on this wiki, when used in descriptions as a proper noun. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki formating refers to something other than the ingame use, so that's two different options. But I guess that if we make it a disambig page it's no hassle to include both. Backsword 13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather prefer a longer article here which handles both instead of a disambig to two mini-stubs.. Also could you please explain what you think an effect is as per ingame use? poke | talk 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We can put the definition back into the formatting guide.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 14:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point out which of my earlier statements leave something out? So I don't just repeat what's already said.Backsword 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not understanding why you think that this is disputed.. I don't see any problems with the current state and you are trying to get things into the definition of an effect which are not effects (as they do not appear in the effects monitor) poke | talk 11:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? I wasn't the one to write the first definition. You were... I was the one who pointed out that such skills are not ingame effects. Backsword 05:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Special skill
WTF?reanor 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, that's a little strange. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts
I've done some researching/thinking lately, and here's what I got.
 * In-game fact: Effects are all Skills.
 * In-game fact: Effects descriptions include a skill type (sometimes two).
 * In-game fact: Effects don't display any Skills properties when mouse-hovering (the only exception being Holy Blessing).
 * In-game fact: The Effects monitor displays "normal" Skills too (like enchantments and hexes).
 * Wiki fact: Infoboxes for "normal" skills were designed to display mouse-hovering and other additional skill-related information wich is not part of the description: Skill properties (energy cost, casting time, etc), Skill profession (the 10 professions, common and monster), and the Skill attribute.

Now, here's a note from GuildWiki's Environment Effect article: "Note: In the Prophecies campaign, Environment Effects are not officially labeled as such in the skill description, but they are labeled "Spell" or "Signet", which is misleading, as these labels may be misinterpreted that the effect is being cast by someone, and that countermeasures that work against other spells or signets might work against Environment Effects too. That is, of course, not the case."

I think this is wrong, countermeasures don't work because:
 * The source ("caster") is not targetable by any character (player or NPC).
 * The effect has no energy/adrenaline cost, no casting time, and no rechage time.

Not because effects are different from "normal" skills. So, if an effect says "spell" or "signet" in it's discription, then it is in fact its skill type. Effects are just skills with less characteristics than "normal" skills, with less information for players to see. Like enchantments, hexes, stances, etc, effects are skills affecting us, and as such they appear in the Effects monitor. If they also deal damage to us, they will appear in the Damage monitor too. The only difference with "effects" is that we can't identify the source as a player or an NPC, but rather as an area, an item, etc. They are skills, we are just not used to the information we receive about them.

Conclusions:
 * Effects don't exist.
 * Special skills don't exist.
 * "Normal" skills don't exist.
 * They are all skills.

The skill infobox should deal with Player skills, Monster skills, and what I call "Trap skills", like Fire Dart. Trap would be the profession I guess, but that's another issue. And the effect infobox should be for formatting porpuses only, taking some burden from the skill infobox to avoid complexity. We should add effects to the skill formatting guide, and probably rename the effect infobox as skill infobox 2 or something. This infobox should be as similar to the skill infobox as possible (in fact, I guess that's why the effect infobox has the same color as the skill one), omiting the parameters that only Player, Monster and Trap skills need (like skill properties and attribute), and adding "other additional skill-related information wich is not part of the description" (like gold cost of Blessings and their respective God). We have to be careful about what we consider "other additional..." to avoid too much complexity. In that vein, I think listing the NPCs that give a blessing or the sugar items that trigger a skill should be left to the Notes. Also, the current effect infobox added a lot of auto-categorization that created new categories, this should also be avoided, being dealt with by the rest of the article, as in, adding the new categories ourselves as we users see fit. Categories like "Consumable effects" are a good idea if you want to know about more similar skills, but an article like Consumable effect, about what Consumable effects are is unnecessary and misleading.reanor 18:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I would start from another point when trying to say what effects are: First, everything is a skill. Then we should look where we get the word "effect" from: The "Effects monitor" lists active effects. So we have our first definition for effects:
 * "Effects are all skills which can be displayed in the effects monitor."
 * And I think we don't need to get any further because this is the final definion for effects. So Hex spells, Enchantments, Conditions, Stances, Blessings, Disguises etc. - all that are effects.
 * For the effects infobox we simply say that we do not list effects which are already handled via the skill infobox - or differently said - which can be directly casted.
 * For the categories, I think it's important to have fixed categories as we also have different but specific types of effects (the ones which are handled with the Effects infobox). Then we can simply put a DPL list on each Effect type article and add a short definition. poke | talk 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I see is that 'effects' are just that, the 'effects' created by activating a skill. Environments effects are skills that will never be in a skillbar, and are 'triggered' by somthing that happens in one map. Why we call them 'Environment effects' and not 'Environment skills', first, because the ingame name is that. Second, becase we wiill never se the skill icon during activation, only the 'effect' of the skill. Same goes for blessings and item effects. We see the effect of the activation, but never the activation. But all are skills. That's why I don't like things like the blessing infobox, I still think that all skills should use the skill infobox. But effects are just that, the 'effects' created for the skill. MithranArkanere 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Trap skills" thing always bothered me. I always though it should just say "Trap". - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 00:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I meant something like "Sentry Trap" or something. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But Poke, we are overcategorizing with the effects thing, Hex spells, Enchantments, Conditions, Stances, Blessings, Disguises etc. are Hex spells, Enchantments, Conditions, Stances, Blessings, Disguises etc. Since every skill has its skill type, there's no need for a category that includes them other than Skills.

Fixed categories and their corresponding definitions will work as long as we don't make too many names up. No average GW player will search for "consumable effect", because it's not a name used in-game, not even by most players. What the average player might do is get to the Sugar Rush article and wonder about similar skills, then the "consumable effects" category at the bottom of the article will help him. I personally created a "costume brawl disguises" category and manually added every costume brawl disguise to it. The infobox only added them to the Disguises category, and that's all it should do, utility categories like the one I made should be handled manually. Still, there's no need for an article about "costume brawl disguises", such name should just redirect to the Costume Brawl article, as "Consumable effects" should redirect to Consumables. Users can put 2+2 and understand the category without a definition for its arbitrary name. That's what I was talking about, I'm not against categories, I'm just saying we have to keep the average user in mind and be careful to keep things simple.

Now, Mithran, you didn't make much sense, and it seemed to me like you have no idea about what is being discussed here, but Environment effects are called Environment effects because that's their Skill type, and that's it. Their definition if often related to "triggered by walking over an area" or something like that. And yes, if skills are the cause, their consequences can be called effects, but that's not the point here. The point is that this wiki must deal with Game integration functions, and the skill infobox was only designed to cover player/NPC and Monster/Trap skills, but ppl had to use it for everything because there was nothing else, creating a huge mess like having the "environment effect skills" category, AND an "environment effect" category (I think that's what Bexor's first post was about). The Special parameter of the skill infobox sucked, and the blessing infobox was created to cover part of that problem, later the effect infobox came up to solve it all, because we thought changing the skill infobox to do it will make it too complex. So the effect infobox lead to the effect formatting guide, and the guide lead to this Effect article. Now we are arguing about the need for this article, I thought we needed it, but now I think otherwise. Backsword was right, we should've stopped at the format guide.reanor 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never meant to categorize the Hex spells, Enchantments etc. (the "normal" skills) into the effect category. But as I want to keep this article because I think it's important, we have to find a definition for it. And in my opinion the best definition is the one I said above. After that formal definition we can say what the Effects category lists. And we differ between Skill type (which is displayed in the description) and that type of skill which says that they are effects or not.
 * For the fixed categories I think the ones which are used by the Effect infobox are descriptive enough for beeing used. I first thought you wanted no categories via the Effect infobox and do them all by yourself which would be messy I think, because Disguises for example are that, and only that (Costume Brawl disguises are disguises as well).
 * I first thought you would agree on that, but your last paragraph confused me. Why should we have stopped at the formatting guide? Effects are in my opinion not a thing which were invented by a wiki community that needed another name for skills that do not fit into the skill infobox. They do exist in the game as we can say because they are listed in the effects monitor. And we cannot use a word "Effect" in each category without ever saying what an effect is. poke | talk 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just thing the wiki can work without the term. Look, at GuildWiki there's this category, its description only says "This category contains various effects that can show up in the Effects Monitor.", and it includes all things that are not Player/NPC/Monster "normal" skills, except things like Title effects wich are not even listed because they don't have Game integration to worry about. Now, the closest thing to an "Effect" article is "Status effect", wich is pretty much a list of what can be considered effects. However, with the only exception of Exhaustion (and may be DP/Morale boost too, I'm not sure), in game all things listed there are Skill types and Skills, and probably no one ever reads that article. That's what Backsword was talking about, who will look for "effect" when they only encounter specific skill types in game? In GuildWiki the Effects category is a subcategory of Game mechanics, and Skills is another subcategory of that category. Game integration told us what we thought to be "effects" were in fact "skills", if GuildWiki had to cope with Game integration, what's in the effects category would be part of the skills category, and the world wouldn't blow up. If we have Category:Fruits with Apples, Bananas, Cherries and Oranges, and we know they are all fruits, why should we make a Subcategory:Red fruits? Because ppl may wonder about other red fruits after reading the Apples article, but we should not make a Subcategory:Red effects just because we came up with Category:Effects as if they weren't Fruits.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Considerations

 * Data Point: Professions
 * There are only ten professions in guild wars. All else is common. There is no profession "Monster" or "trap". Indeed, some monster skills have a profession, like the rit spirit attacks, or the Destroyer version of Splinter Shot. Thus this is not something to base categorisation on.


 * Data Point: The skill infobox' special parameter
 * Always adds the sting " skill" to whatever is placed there. Has annoyed people for months, but apparently it's considered too much of a hassle to change. Personally, I thought bots could help.


 * Data Point: Game mechanics of skill implementation
 * As far as I've understood things, skill only have one trait ingame that is relevant to this; lets call it "learnable". This seems to be a binary switch, and when it's off the skill can't be taught by skill trainers, unlocked from priests, captured with SoCs or revealed by the mesmer skills. Take the bug with the costume brawl skills as an example; it only affected some of them. Obviously, they had this set to on by mistake.


 * Everything else we have observed is a trait of the activating entity.


 * Issue: Skillboxes
 * I happen to agree with MithranArkanere here, perhaps not for the same reasons, but in any case this issue has veered too far from the original one and contributers interested in it cannot be expected to read this page. I suggest we move this question to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills. I'll give my view there.


 * Issue: Skill type
 * An ingame mechanic and as such we should document it as it appears ingame. Note that unlike most elelments of the skill info window, the skill type is part of the text description and thus easily wrong, or even missing. We list the correct value when we know it. See Sneak Attack for an example.


 * I do agree we have been treating skill types in an disorganised way, but again, that's beyond the scope of what can be expected of this talk page. Perhaps it's time for an formating guide for skill types? I might write a draft if no one else gets to it. If so, that would be the place for this issue.


 * Issue: This article
 * We seems to have consensus on not listing formating here, which I like on the grounds of no formating articles in mainspace.


 * Remains to be seen if we should list everything ingame that people may search for. I think that MithranArkanere shows that may players considers more things to be effects. Just from skills, damage and conditions may be thought of as effects. Of course they may talk of the effect of completing a quest and so on.


 * Having given this further consideration, I think it's best to leave the article as it is now, and only descibe Effect as a game mechanic. There is simply to much in the colloquial version. Logically, anying that has a cuase is an effect of that, so everything in the game could be called an effect. Absurd to list. Better to draw a sharp line where it's used as a proper noun.


 * Issue: The Effects category
 * Don't know what should be done with this one. At least it should not be misleading.

That's all. Backsword

Discussion revival
Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills - anja   13:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Concise Effects

 * See: Main discussion --Falconeye 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)