Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Effects
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Effects infobox[edit]
- → moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills
{{Blessing infobox}} and {{Environment effect infobox}} have been introduced. I would like to pose a question on whether we actually need them as separate infoboxes, given the apparent preference of merging the {{Rune infobox}} into the {{Item infobox}} (and possibly revamping it to make it better).
First, should blessings and environment effects and miscellaneous things like disguises use the skill infobox? Although they don't really share very many parameters, in the context of GW, they are skills, just not skills that characters can acquire (hence no acquisition section). Do we want to split the skills in Guild Wars Wiki:Game integration/Skills to use multiple infoboxes? The advantage is that it keeps the skill infobox cleaner, but it does entails additional formatting guidelines. If we do use a separate infobox, I would it's much better to merge the new infoboxes into a more generic {{Effects infobox}}. -- ab.er.rant 
01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think they share a great many parameters. A lot of trap effects have recharge, etc. I would support a merge. - BeX
03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- After creating the {{Environment effect infobox}}, I realized that it can be used on other effects like Disguises. So yes, we could do some merging there, but I found the blessing i-box useful because, unlike the skill infobox, it can add the gold cost of the blessing, and acctually, that's why I made it. Now, the big problem with the skill infobox, as has been stated here, is that the 'special' parameter adds an unnecesary, inaccurate and misleading "skill" surname to the skill type, thus creating the need for a new infobox for each skill type that posed this problem. I think we need the new infoboxes, but I agree with Ab.er.rant about being careful and try to make them more generic. For example, while I was working on the blessings, I also created a category for what I called Bounty-like blessings, agrouping blessings like Asuran Bodyguard. It took me some work, but I arranged the {{Blessing infobox}} so that it could work for this blessings too. The Bounty i-box wouldn't had work, and the original blessing i-box didn't covered them, but making a new i-box just for them was a bad idea.
reanor 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of them can be put with the skill-infobox, I just can't understand why the alll this 'one infobox for each thing'. Even the skill icon could be changed to alow parameters, so the same infobox could be used to show monster, elite or for normal items (i.e: {{skill icon|name|monster}}), making so many different and new infoboxes just makes harder for people to remember them all, and most people may still use the old ones until they notice the new, and all get messed up, as we say in spain "less is more". MithranArkanere 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion it would be good to seperate all skills (as they are technically in GW) into skills, the player/enemies/things can use (=> Skill infobox), and skills/effects, the player/enemies/things can only be faced with (=> Effect skill infobox ?). This would make it possible to divide the multiple parameters as the effects normally don't have an attribute (for example).
- For the rune infobox I think (when looking for example at Rune of Restoration) that there is too much information in the infobox but nearly no information in the page itself. As we don't need to get information (for example per DPL) from the infobox, that content could be put into the page instead..
- The Polymock piece infobox is useless too, as Polymock pieces are first, simple items, and second, the content which is generated through the infobox could be easily added on the page itself (also the color does not match with other item infoboxes) poke | talk 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think separating effects from skills players/foes can use is good. And I think keeping all those effects in one infobox, but not the skill infobox, would be best, to avoid too much confusion. Why not {{Effects infobox}} then :)
Regarding the item infobox, please take that to the item infobox talk, since there's already a discussion on going there. - anja
11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- We better do this quick, cause we have an Environment effects category AND an Environment effect skills category with different articles, messings things up. We were supposed to deal with the {{skill infobox}}'s 'special parameter+skill' mistake making a redirect.reanor 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- We better do this quick, cause we have an Environment effects category AND an Environment effect skills category with different articles, messings things up. We were supposed to deal with the {{skill infobox}}'s 'special parameter+skill' mistake making a redirect.
- I think separating effects from skills players/foes can use is good. And I think keeping all those effects in one infobox, but not the skill infobox, would be best, to avoid too much confusion. Why not {{Effects infobox}} then :)
- All of them can be put with the skill-infobox, I just can't understand why the alll this 'one infobox for each thing'. Even the skill icon could be changed to alow parameters, so the same infobox could be used to show monster, elite or for normal items (i.e: {{skill icon|name|monster}}), making so many different and new infoboxes just makes harder for people to remember them all, and most people may still use the old ones until they notice the new, and all get messed up, as we say in spain "less is more". MithranArkanere 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- After creating the {{Environment effect infobox}}, I realized that it can be used on other effects like Disguises. So yes, we could do some merging there, but I found the blessing i-box useful because, unlike the skill infobox, it can add the gold cost of the blessing, and acctually, that's why I made it. Now, the big problem with the skill infobox, as has been stated here, is that the 'special' parameter adds an unnecesary, inaccurate and misleading "skill" surname to the skill type, thus creating the need for a new infobox for each skill type that posed this problem. I think we need the new infoboxes, but I agree with Ab.er.rant about being careful and try to make them more generic. For example, while I was working on the blessings, I also created a category for what I called Bounty-like blessings, agrouping blessings like Asuran Bodyguard. It took me some work, but I arranged the {{Blessing infobox}} so that it could work for this blessings too. The Bounty i-box wouldn't had work, and the original blessing i-box didn't covered them, but making a new i-box just for them was a bad idea.
- From a game engine perspective, they are all skills. Blessings are explicitly a skill type, like signets and whatnot. Thus I would oppose any such change to the current guideline.
- If there is a problem with the infobox, fix it, don't create a new one. Backsword 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the point, Backsword. Blessings and other effects are skills but they differ a lot from normal skills that can be casted. They normally don't have an attribute, a profession, cast/recast/energy/adrenaline/whatever; also they are never casted by anyone, they are just there. Instead there have a (gold) cost (for blessings), or a specific event which releases an effect.
- It's not that it could not be covered by {{Skill infobox}} but there are such a lot differences that it would be to confusing and complex to use one template for all skill types.
- If we use a second template, we could make the infoboxes cleaner and easier to understand (and faster). poke | talk 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's true for much of what's covered by the special parameter. It already hides to irrelevant fields, so cleanness is not a problem.
- I also can't see how activation system would affect the infobox. Backsword 15:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the better most simply option would be
- Skillbar (skills) Activated by creatures that have them in their skill bars:
- Normal Skills (PvP and PvE) linked to titles, professions and/or attributes...
- Monster Skills
- Temporary skills (rollebeetle, junundu, devourer, festival, mission, etc...)
- Non-skillbar (effects) Triggered when the certain conditions are fulfilled:
- Blessings (Generally talking to an NPC)
- Environment effects (Generally walking over certain area or holding an item)
- Item effect (Always by using consumables)
- Skillbar (skills) Activated by creatures that have them in their skill bars:
- MithranArkanere 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the better most simply option would be
- I agree. Creating and maintaining one infobox that can handle all those situations nicely would need alot of work, and probably mean not many other people than those who made it could edit it, since the code would be so complicated (and so much of it). - anja 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Creating and maintaining one infobox that can handle all those situations nicely would need alot of work, and probably mean not many other people than those who made it could edit it, since the code would be so complicated (and so much of it). - anja
- Take it from the author, the environment effect infobox uses so few parameters (just campaign and trigger[item, area, etc]) that you can use it on any effect (like disguises). But I'd take out the trigger parameter 'cause, when I used it, I realized that info is better covered with Notes and/or Locations. The blessing infobox is already on every blessing, except some few bounty-like ones. I'm thinking of adding a Type parameter for: Blessing (for gods' and faction blessings like Holy Blessing, Ranger of Melandru and Blessing of the Kurzicks), Random Bonus (like the Hunt Rampage) , and Bounty-like blessing (like Asuran Bodyguard). Any problem with that?reanor 06:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Take it from the author, the environment effect infobox uses so few parameters (just campaign and trigger[item, area, etc]) that you can use it on any effect (like disguises). But I'd take out the trigger parameter 'cause, when I used it, I realized that info is better covered with Notes and/or Locations. The blessing infobox is already on every blessing, except some few bounty-like ones. I'm thinking of adding a Type parameter for: Blessing (for gods' and faction blessings like Holy Blessing, Ranger of Melandru and Blessing of the Kurzicks), Random Bonus (like the Hunt Rampage) , and Bounty-like blessing (like Asuran Bodyguard). Any problem with that?
- The problem with the "special" parameter is because it's too special. I have no idea clear idea how to use it and I almost always have to refer to existing skills. I would say splitting into at least (or at most) 2 different infoboxes would be good, both technically, and in terms of usability. -- ab.er.rant
03:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the "special" parameter is because it's too special. I have no idea clear idea how to use it and I almost always have to refer to existing skills. I would say splitting into at least (or at most) 2 different infoboxes would be good, both technically, and in terms of usability. -- ab.er.rant
- I agree Special is badly documented. But wouldn't the solution to that be to...document it? Backsword 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Woot! I just edited all blessings using the leetly updated and improved {{Blessing infobox}}, there are only Random Bonuses pages missing. It works for every kind of blessing in existance. Check Category:Blessings articles and tell me it ain't way better than using good old {{Skill infobox}}.reanor 07:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Woot! I just edited all blessings using the leetly updated and improved {{Blessing infobox}}, there are only Random Bonuses pages missing. It works for every kind of blessing in existance. Check Category:Blessings articles and tell me it ain't way better than using good old {{Skill infobox}}.
- I made a first draft of the Template:Effect infobox. I think we should split Skills and Effects than, so I will move this to an additional formatting guide. poke | talk 11:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone explain to me what it you are trying to get the infobox to do, since you are all talking about it and I don't even know what it is. Backsword 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- You don't know what what is? The infobox is simply to give an overview over the page and do maybe some auto-categorsation..!? poke | talk 13:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is meant to allow non-player skills to use a more customised infobox than skill infobox, plus it cuts down on skill infobox use as well. -- ab.er.rant 16:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd have thought using templates was desirable. Why the need to cut down on use of the Skill Infobox? Backsword 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The effect infobox is a template, too. It's just modified to be special to the effects only. This relieves the Skill infobox, makes it faster and the code more easier to understand. poke | talk 13:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and when I said "cut down" I also meant the impact of an edit on skill infobox. Each time a template gets edited, the wiki goes through all the pages that uses it and re-processes them, generating a lot of additional jobs, so cutting down on template use can be a good thing. -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The dead wiki issue that was debated a bit back. However, I thought the concensus was against changing the workings of the wiki to deal with it; rather the job rate should be reduced. That would apply here too. Backsword 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that the server cannot deal that or that the job queue level is too high (actually it's too low); but when changing a big template like the infoboxes, many jobs will be added; that is something you can avoid by splitting the tasks into two different infoboxes, as you can implement a change for Effects (for example) without having to change all skill pages.. poke | talk 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The skill infoboc is messy already to handle all skill situations. If we would tweak it to handle all effect situations also, it would be almost impossible to edit it because of the sheer amount of code and the messiness it creates. I'm for creating templates that more people than Poke/Aberrant/<insert user with alot of wiki knowledge here> can edit ;) - anja 09:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you all say, but no one can give me an example. Makes me a sad panda. Backsword 06:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The skill infoboc is messy already to handle all skill situations. If we would tweak it to handle all effect situations also, it would be almost impossible to edit it because of the sheer amount of code and the messiness it creates. I'm for creating templates that more people than Poke/Aberrant/<insert user with alot of wiki knowledge here> can edit ;) - anja
- It's not that the server cannot deal that or that the job queue level is too high (actually it's too low); but when changing a big template like the infoboxes, many jobs will be added; that is something you can avoid by splitting the tasks into two different infoboxes, as you can implement a change for Effects (for example) without having to change all skill pages.. poke | talk 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The dead wiki issue that was debated a bit back. However, I thought the concensus was against changing the workings of the wiki to deal with it; rather the job rate should be reduced. That would apply here too. Backsword 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and when I said "cut down" I also meant the impact of an edit on skill infobox. Each time a template gets edited, the wiki goes through all the pages that uses it and re-processes them, generating a lot of additional jobs, so cutting down on template use can be a good thing. -- ab.er.rant
- The effect infobox is a template, too. It's just modified to be special to the effects only. This relieves the Skill infobox, makes it faster and the code more easier to understand. poke | talk 13:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd have thought using templates was desirable. Why the need to cut down on use of the Skill Infobox? Backsword 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- For what do you need an example?? poke | talk 07:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
About this formatting guide[edit]
I would like to merge all effects, including Bounties, Blessings, Conditions, Environment effects etc., based on the following base definition of an effect: Effects are non-castable skills triggered by a specific action (should probably be more precise).
I created (as stated in the discussion above) a new infobox to include all those effects: Template:Effect infobox.
The Category:Effects should be built up in the following way (see the template description for a description of each type):
This should include all existing effects we know (if I forgot something, please say). I will set up a proposed formatting for effects in the coming hours but I would like you to comment on this to give some more ideas on formatting or handling effects in general. poke | talk 11:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is good, and I don't have anything to add at the moment. - anja 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's more to it. With the exception of Blessings (Bounties, Gods Blessings and Bounty-like blessings), all of those effects need only 2 infobox parameters: Campaign and Type, since all the other information (like trigger and location) is better put in the article. Instead of basing our categorization for infoboxes in in-game generalizing definitions, may be we should base our future infobox design in the information infoboxes can or should present here in the Wiki. That said, I still agree with the Effects infobox idea.
- The {{Blessing infobox}} works for Gods Blessings, Bounty-like blessings (including EotN Reputation blessings and Factions Kurzick/Luxon Blessings), and Random Bonuses (I wouldn't call them reputation blessings, since that isn't their in-game name). Nightfall Bounties are a totally different type, so I left them alone. Besides, the {{Blessing infobox}} is already parameter heavy, with a lot of optional parameters to fit all blessings. But, the latest version, meant to cover Random Bonuses (by making the 'NPC(s)' parameter optional and adding a 'Bonus from' parameter for the Reputation Bleesing it comes from), made all parameters optional with the exception of Campaign and Type, so guest what, the Blessing infobox covers all effects. Just move it to the new name, and there you have it: Effects infobox. Edit: Poke's version seems great even with the added parameters, delete tag on my blessing infobox:(reanor 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's more to it. With the exception of Blessings (Bounties, Gods Blessings and Bounty-like blessings), all of those effects need only 2 infobox parameters: Campaign and Type, since all the other information (like trigger and location) is better put in the article. Instead of basing our categorization for infoboxes in in-game generalizing definitions, may be we should base our future infobox design in the information infoboxes can or should present here in the Wiki. That said, I still agree with the Effects infobox idea.
PS: I'll start changing the Blessings...(All that hard work, again...-_-!).
reanor 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wait with changing until we have finished the guide! It will just be more work to change them again when it's finished :) And we also need some more comments. - anja 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wait with changing until we have finished the guide! It will just be more work to change them again when it's finished :) And we also need some more comments. - anja
- I personally wrote most of the blessings, the format is obvious:
- Infobox (wich now includes the Description)
- Acquisition/Locations:
- Campaign
- Region
- NPC
- Region
- Campaign
- Notes
- The format guide is just a formality.
- Anyway, here's a comment from my first edit: 'Duration' parameter looks ackward. I know its optional, but that info appears in the description anyway. May be we should remove it.
- If someone thinks your box is better, are you going to change it all back? :P It doesn't hurt to wait a day or two. :) - anja 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If someone thinks your box is better, are you going to change it all back? :P It doesn't hurt to wait a day or two. :) - anja
- After going trough the whole process of Blessing infoboxing, in the end, as I said above, it became an effects infobox. If anyone thinks my box is better is a --censored by GWW:NPA---. Anyway, Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Help me change the articles anyone?reanor 18:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- After going trough the whole process of Blessing infoboxing, in the end, as I said above, it became an effects infobox. If anyone thinks my box is better is a --censored by GWW:NPA---. Anyway, Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Help me change the articles anyone?
- The complete discussion above was about not using the Template:Blessing infobox and the Template:Environment effect infobox. After you did the first wave of edits to the Blessing infobox I thought about asking if you even read the discussion? Now I think you did not read this discussion again, because I can't see how you start pointing out the good aspects of your Blessing infobox and then ending with an edit, that you found my infobox..? Sorry, but that does not make that much sense..
- As I wrote before, this template is primarily a proposal. I wanted to wait for comments and the formatting guide itself as the template maybe (or probably) need some improvements. Also the formatting guide is not a formality; the guides are meant to maintain a consistent style and as we will merge all effects (including Conditions and Bounties which do not fit in your scheme) we cannot simply use the one, you did up to now.
- Please keep all those articles as they are until we have a well defined guide. poke | talk 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reputation blessings would be the EotN bounty-like blessings, like Asuran Bodyguard. Reputation bonuses would be the Random bonuses you get every 25 kills under those blessings. Poke seems to like using weird names for some reason.reanor 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not so much weird names as trying to find fitting names to separate things. The blessings and bonuses är different enough to need to be separated imo. - anja 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the case, I see no reason to split up things like Asuran Bodyguard and Hunt Rampage into two different categories. They're all reputation blessings. -- ab.er.rant 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Imo there is a difference as Asuran Bodyguard is more like a Bounty, as it's given from Asuran; Hunt Rampage is not given by any NPC and by splitting both up, we could also combine all Hunt Rampages (for all reputations) into one article as we could simply say that Reputation bonuses are dependent on the already given Reputation blessing.
- And Ereanor, "Poke seems to like using weird names for some reason." - "Bounty-like blessing" and "Random Bonus" was the suggestion in your Blessing infobox btw. not very clear imo.. Reputation blessing and Reputation bonus explain exactly that what they are, blessings/bonuses given for reputation. poke | talk 12:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not so much weird names as trying to find fitting names to separate things. The blessings and bonuses är different enough to need to be separated imo. - anja
- I still say the split is rather trivial. For the case of Hunt Rampage, even if you merge them into one article, you still have to list down each of the blessing that has a chance of bringing on the Hunt Rampage. If kept as separate articles, each of those Hunt Rampage pages would still link to the blessing that triggers them. So having an extra category offers only a minor usefulness. Combined or split, Hunt Rampage will still include a note on how to get said blessing, regardless of whether we have a page that defines what a "Reputation bonus" is. Also, a "bonus" doesn't really imply a "blessing" so I also don't find the term appealing. So having an additional term doesn't really add much. I can accept splitting the blessings based on race/title (such as "Asura blessings" or something), but splitting it by acquisition method rather than actual type in a hierarchy of type feels a bit inconsistent.
- The second reason is because the way I see it, the term "Bounty" came about primarily because of the flavor all those dialogue gave, emphasizing on hunting and destroying enemies. I'm thinking a Category:Title blessings would be a good merge of Category:Bounties and Category:Reputation blessings. This can also include the sub triggered bonus blessings (Category:Triggered title blessings?) as well. Not an outright opposition, just throwing out some thoughts.
- Also, in case we forget, just a reminder that the formatting guidelines will also need to determine where to put the research ala Asuran Bodyguard - keep it there, or move it to Asura rank. -- ab.er.rant 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, in case we forget, just a reminder that the formatting guidelines will also need to determine where to put the research ala Asuran Bodyguard - keep it there, or move it to Asura rank. -- ab.er.rant
- Well, Random Bonus is the in-game name for those blessings, that's way a like it more. And what I call Bounty-like blessings is a greater catergory, since Blessing of the Kurzicks/Luxons are also bounty-like. If we choose to have a Reputation blessings category, we'd also need a Faction blessings category, that is, with 3 blessings in one, and 2 in the other. I think one Bounty-like Blessings category is enough.reanor 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Random Bonus is the in-game name for those blessings, that's way a like it more. And what I call Bounty-like blessings is a greater catergory, since Blessing of the Kurzicks/Luxons are also bounty-like. If we choose to have a Reputation blessings category, we'd also need a Faction blessings category, that is, with 3 blessings in one, and 2 in the other. I think one Bounty-like Blessings category is enough.
- We discussed that issue a bit in IRC and decided to categorise all those blessings as Reputation blessings as getting Lightbringer/Sunspear points and Kurzick/Luxon points as well increase the reputation of a specific group. Reputation bonuses are described as Blessing and also give points towards the title/reputation.
- Title blessings, Ab.er, would not work as the Kurzick/Luxon blessing does not give points towards the title. poke | talk 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Decided is a bit wrong, but discussed and found that we think that name fits bets. :P - anja 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wanted to use a different word but did not found one :P poke | talk 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- IDK, Kurzick/Luxon isn't a title but reputation refers to a title in all other cases. Besides, reputation as a GW concept was introduced with EotN, as bounties came with Nightfall and factions came with Factions, it just doesn't do it for me.(PS: the word was "agreed")reanor 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- IDK, Kurzick/Luxon isn't a title but reputation refers to a title in all other cases. Besides, reputation as a GW concept was introduced with EotN, as bounties came with Nightfall and factions came with Factions, it just doesn't do it for me.(PS: the word was "agreed")
- Yeah, I wanted to use a different word but did not found one :P poke | talk 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Decided is a bit wrong, but discussed and found that we think that name fits bets. :P - anja
- We don't have to use the Guild Wars understanding of reputation here. And btw. "faction" was used for "Balthazar faction" before Factions-release; and bounty is afaik invented by the users, at least I don't know if there is ever in-game referred to bounty; "Hunt" would be more appropriate as all "bounties" are called "XY Hunt". poke | talk 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vabbian Scout
- Insect Hunt:
- Accept dialogue: Hand me that bounty. You aren't using it, and I could use the exercise.
- Plant Hunt:
- Accept: I'm happy to help a fellow dog lover. Give me that bounty.
- After receiving the bounty he responses: You have the bounty for destroying those hostile plants. Chop chop. Get to it!
- There's this guy too Sunspear Scout
- Insect Hunt:
- reanor 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bounties is a very suitable term for those Nightfall blessings, I agree, but that's besides the point... unless you're arguing that "Bounty-like blessing" is still a better term? Punctuation in category names is not really a good idea imho, and not very elegant, because it's like saying they are "something like" bounties, but not actually bounties... when in their nature, they are like bounties, just not worded like bounties. As for "Random Bonus", it's fine to use it in the article itself when explaining them, but they are not a good category name because they are ambiguous, it's even more generic and vague than "reputation bonuses".
- And then for poke's explanation for reputation blessings, I did not think about the Kurzick/Luxon blessings, so I now see where you're coming from. But I would like to point out that Blessing of the Kurzicks and Blessing of the Luxons do not fit in with the others. You agreed that they do not add to title progress and you're right, so why lump them together with those that do? Why not have a Category:Faction blessings instead? These earn faction points. "Title blessings" earn points for a specific title. The word "reputation", as you explained, is used in more of an English meaning, than in the EotN context. That makes it needlessly ambiguous though. And in light of this, "Reputation blessings" (like "Bounties") carries a more flavorful meaning than "Title blessings", which carries a more mechanical meaning. With both "Title blessings" and "Faction blessings", it should explain the category better than "Reputation blessings" right?
- And as for "discussed on IRC", unless the conversation in reposted here, they don't carry any weight and doesn't really explain anything. I'm not accusing anything; I just feel uncomfortable with them because they carry with them an implied sense of weight. Maybe just a toned down "we talked about this" is fine, but... I donno, maybe I'm just being a prick because of recent happenings. -- ab.er.rant 06:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- And as for "discussed on IRC", unless the conversation in reposted here, they don't carry any weight and doesn't really explain anything. I'm not accusing anything; I just feel uncomfortable with them because they carry with them an implied sense of weight. Maybe just a toned down "we talked about this" is fine, but... I donno, maybe I'm just being a prick because of recent happenings. -- ab.er.rant
- As you say, reputation blessings is more leaning towards the English meaning than the exact game meaning of the word. I would be fine dividing the "reputation" ones into Faction and Title, but we also have to remember that the K/L blessings do not only give points, but health and regen too. And these blessing were available before the title change, now they just give Faction also. That's partly why we got stuck with reputation blessings, Faction blessings didn't really seem to cover it fully. I'm not opposed to you idea though.
I responded on your talk page about the IRC issue. Just bad wordings. - anja 10:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- As you say, reputation blessings is more leaning towards the English meaning than the exact game meaning of the word. I would be fine dividing the "reputation" ones into Faction and Title, but we also have to remember that the K/L blessings do not only give points, but health and regen too. And these blessing were available before the title change, now they just give Faction also. That's partly why we got stuck with reputation blessings, Faction blessings didn't really seem to cover it fully. I'm not opposed to you idea though.
- The whole bounty-like idea came from that last point you stated (there was an "Other bounty-like effects" section in the bounty article). Nightfall bounties give you title points and exp. per kill, and that's it, all kill related. Factions/EotN blessings have a typical blessing effect (+hp and regen; and random bonus every 25 kills, respectivly), so they looked like bounties with an add on. I guess we were all kinda "contaminated" by the over use of the word bounty for Nightfall hunt blessings, and that led us to call the new ones bounties. In the end, they are just blessings, with thier own particular effect. We can still recognize tough, similarities between some of them, creating a classification based on how they work and where they come from. This gives us 5 blessing types: the blessings of the gods wich are offered by the avatars, the kurzick and luxon blessings, the species-hunt blessings from Elona, the reputation blessings from EotN, and the respective bonuses that come from those blessings. I think we should use this categorization, and start worrying only about how to name them.reanor 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to merge as much of these blessings as we can, so I would agree with Ab.er's solution on having "Title blessings" and "Faction blessings", before having one for each campaign/expansion.. Also I think we should merge the EN blessings and their random bonuses as they provide the same thing; both types are blessings, both give points and both are linked to the specific title. poke | talk 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reputation seems to be the best in the end, it's the only concept than can cover EotN reputations, Nightfall titles and Factions alliances. So the effect infobox is working well for everything. The only problem I still find, is the duration parameter display, it's sometimes minutes and sometimes seconds, the recharge icon doesn't do it, and it's in the description anyway. It's better put in the list below the image with the rest of the parameters, or removed at all.reanor 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reputation seems to be the best in the end, it's the only concept than can cover EotN reputations, Nightfall titles and Factions alliances. So the effect infobox is working well for everything. The only problem I still find, is the duration parameter display, it's sometimes minutes and sometimes seconds, the recharge icon doesn't do it, and it's in the description anyway. It's better put in the list below the image with the rest of the parameters, or removed at all.
- I would like to merge as much of these blessings as we can, so I would agree with Ab.er's solution on having "Title blessings" and "Faction blessings", before having one for each campaign/expansion.. Also I think we should merge the EN blessings and their random bonuses as they provide the same thing; both types are blessings, both give points and both are linked to the specific title. poke | talk 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess we can just do that, but the recharge icon still looks awkward.reanor 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The whole bounty-like idea came from that last point you stated (there was an "Other bounty-like effects" section in the bounty article). Nightfall bounties give you title points and exp. per kill, and that's it, all kill related. Factions/EotN blessings have a typical blessing effect (+hp and regen; and random bonus every 25 kills, respectivly), so they looked like bounties with an add on. I guess we were all kinda "contaminated" by the over use of the word bounty for Nightfall hunt blessings, and that led us to call the new ones bounties. In the end, they are just blessings, with thier own particular effect. We can still recognize tough, similarities between some of them, creating a classification based on how they work and where they come from. This gives us 5 blessing types: the blessings of the gods wich are offered by the avatars, the kurzick and luxon blessings, the species-hunt blessings from Elona, the reputation blessings from EotN, and the respective bonuses that come from those blessings. I think we should use this categorization, and start worrying only about how to name them.
Disguises[edit]
Working in the costume brawl skills (disguises), I realized we could add some parameters for what is fixed while disguised, like health, energy, and skills.reanor 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- This would be probably too much information for a infobox. In my opinion, a infobox should always try to contain less (but more important/general) information than the rest of the page. poke | talk 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but look at this Cynn (disguise), that information should appear, but it doesn't look very neat. A ==Skills== section in the article would work, but the Health and the Energy can be put in the infobox.reanor 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's too many confusing parameters in the infobox already, imo. We have a energy parameter that's meant to represent cost, how do we distinguish that from "This effect gives you xx energy"? I think it's alot better to have a clear description in the article. - anja 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the blessing infobox I added the energy and activation as exceptional parameters for Holy Blessing. That's why they're there. The infobox should only cover the information that is not displayed in the Description. That's why the energy parameter shouldn't be used for "This effect gives you xx energy", why I don't like the duration parameter, and why I'd like a fixed health and fixed energy parameter for disguises like Desert Wurm (disguise) and the costume brawl costumes.reanor 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's too many confusing parameters in the infobox already, imo. We have a energy parameter that's meant to represent cost, how do we distinguish that from "This effect gives you xx energy"? I think it's alot better to have a clear description in the article. - anja
- Sure, but look at this Cynn (disguise), that information should appear, but it doesn't look very neat. A ==Skills== section in the article would work, but the Health and the Energy can be put in the infobox.
- My question was more meant to be "How do you make it obvious in the infobox that this energy listing means your maximum energy is modified to this number, not that the effects requires this amount of energy to be used?" I think that would be very hard without including alot of text in it. Which destroys the purpose. - anja 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- My question was more meant to be "How do you make it obvious in the infobox that this energy listing means your maximum energy is modified to this number, not that the effects requires this amount of energy to be used?" I think that would be very hard without including alot of text in it. Which destroys the purpose. - anja
- It'll appear in the infobox list below the image, not by its side like requirements. Besides, no one is that dumb to think 600 health and 60 energy are costs.reanor 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that will be obvious, for a reader. It's not about being dumb or not, it's about being clear. - anja 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that will be obvious, for a reader. It's not about being dumb or not, it's about being clear. - anja
- It'll appear in the infobox list below the image, not by its side like requirements. Besides, no one is that dumb to think 600 health and 60 energy are costs.
- The skill infobox just says 5
and nobody complains.reanor 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The skill infobox just says 5
- Yes, because it's more common knowledge, I assume. I guess I'm also opposed to this listing in the infobox since it applies to very few effects, plus I think it would look ugly. But, it's not a huge thing, it's better if we get this into some kind of finished state. If you feel so strongly about it, and no one else opposes, try it and we'll see how it works out. :) - anja 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't go democratic on me, it's been us 3 for weeks. Points taken, I'll make an example when I get back in a few hours and we'll see.reanor 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- While working the template I had a better idea, so I did this (remember it is a test, it'll look better). What do you think?reanor 14:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because it's more common knowledge, I assume. I guess I'm also opposed to this listing in the infobox since it applies to very few effects, plus I think it would look ugly. But, it's not a huge thing, it's better if we get this into some kind of finished state. If you feel so strongly about it, and no one else opposes, try it and we'll see how it works out. :) - anja
- Seems like a good idea to me. Of course, cleaner icons and spacing and all that, but I like the idea. That is what I call descriptive ^^ - anja 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The idea is quite good, but we need to make this more dynamic (without the need of images). I will create a energy/health tango bar and try something on this ;) poke | talk 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- User:Poke/sandbox#Infobox :] poke | talk 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The idea is quite good, but we need to make this more dynamic (without the need of images). I will create a energy/health tango bar and try something on this ;) poke | talk 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. Of course, cleaner icons and spacing and all that, but I like the idea. That is what I call descriptive ^^ - anja
- The usual bars are more self-explanatory. But I guess that'd work.reanor 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Standarization[edit]
Going through the different effects/disguises/forms that change appearance, stats and skills. I found that they are not formatted uniformly. What one see often is a disguise effect icon with the health and energy of the disguise, but after that the formant and the way the skills are linked seems to be random. I suggest to decide on a format. For example:
- Effect/disguise/form descriptions, both verbose and concise if they exist. As with any other skill and effect.
- "Skill"s section.
- It would use the {{skill bar}} template.
- With skills that may change (e.g.: the Yuletide profession-specific skills,the Junundu Siege before it's learned), 'Optional' slots with descriptive texts would be put in the skill bar in place of the variable skills, such as "Profession specific", "God specific" or "Elite skill" in the Junundu bar.
- Under the skill bar, a list with the possible skills that fill the variable slots would appear, such as the skills that may appear in the indicated Optional slots, and the skills that may replace the currently equipped ones (like those that appear after using Junundu Feast).
- I've seen often the entire concise or verbose description added in a list. People can click on a skill to see more about it, so there's no need to add the entire description of every single skill in the skill bar. If they are in hurry they probably have the skills in front of them and can read them in-game, if not, they can easily click the skill icons and read their respective pages.
- Conversely, the mission/quest/area pages will not have the skill bar. Instead, they'll have a link to the effect page.
- "Related skills" section to put other effects/disguises related to this one.
- "Notes" section, including extra information such as which equipment properties and consumables effects will work under the disguise.
- Things like combat tips and strategies would go in the respective walkthroughs, stragegy sections and notes sections for areas, missions or quests in which they are used.
- In the same way, quirks about the effect itself will not be in the mission/area/quest pages
- Trivia exclusive to the effect and the skills themselves
- No trivia about the places or situations in which the skills are used, that would go in the respective pages of the areas, missions and quests.
Now comes the annoying part. The skills provided by the disguise/form/effect.
- Many of these skills use the 'special' tag, some do not have it set yet. Clicking on the "Special" link will send you to different places for different skills. For some is a huge list containing all special skills, for others is a list containing PvE skills players can learn plus these skills, others link to a list with just the skills on this particular set, for some is the quest, mission, area or arena in which the skills are used, and for some is another, different list. There's simply no consistency in that. And When a user clicks on a link that says "Junundu skills" you'll expect they'll get to a page talking about the Junundu Skills, not to a massive list showing all special skills with no particular info about the Junundu skills themselves.
- The idea is to make them all consistent with each other, by choosing a single method. Here are some examples of what could be done:
- Siege Devourer example. Using the special tag to put a generic term for the set of skills, and then redirecting the resulting "<xxx> skill" page back to the effect/disguise/form page. This works for single skills, but when the skill is used in more than one effect, this doesn't work unless a generic term is made up for all effects. Several manual categorizations are redirects are still required.
- Brawling skill and Snow fighting skill example. In this case, the skills are put into a single list, and the "<xxx> skill" page is redirected to that list. The top of the page has a description of the list with a link back to the original skill-changing effect. This method is more consistent with the attribute in normal skills, showing all skills in that 'set' of skills in a list with a description at the top when a link in the infobox is clicked. The name both of the examples use is not standarized, though. One has "list" in front of it, and the other doesn't.
- On top of that, a new parameter could be added to the infobox:
- In that paramenter, it would go the list of effect(s) that grant the skill. For example "| parent=Yuletide|Godly Yuletide" or "| disguise = Going Commando".
- The infobox in the page would show a list of small icons followed by name of the effects/disguises/forms that give them, much like the skill icon consumable infoboxes have to show the effect they'll trigger.
- It could also autocategorize the skills as skills given by that effect/disguise/form with more homogeneous terms, such as "Skills granted by <effect name>" instead arbitrary names.
Whatever is done. I hope it gets more homogeneous, so adding any new future effects like these and relating them to the skills they give becomes easier. Mith
Talk 16:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
environment effects[edit]
i apparently got ahead of myself b/c i never read this page and its discussions until now and started editing environment effects articles to include the recent effects infobox. i hadn't realized that this infobox was never finalized. so anyways, i recently gave Avalanche (effect) the effect infobox and called it an anomaly that the skill had spell in its description. adding the anomaly tag maybe went too far (even though Cleansed does have an anomaly tag), but the effect infobox was also reverted. i then moved the name to Avalanche (spell) and attempted to label the skill w/ "special = Environment effect" which was also reverted and now the skill is listed as a common skill w/ no attribute which is wrong in addition to making no sense. so anyways, my question is should we attempt to place "spells" that act as environment effects in the skill in skill infobox or the effect infobox? and even if it should be in the effect infobox, is the infobox in a state of completion where i should make the change or not? if it needs to stay in the skill infobox, then we should include the special tag b/c its absence gives the wrong impression. --VVong|BA 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- For effects, we simply ignore the given skill type. We choose the effect based on the effect, not on the given description, so in your case Avalanche (effect) is correct and the type is
Environment effect. poke | talk 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- thx for the reply. ok, just wanted to mention this. i went through changing the infobox on skills like Ice Dart and saw that it had a parameter for recharge. i left it in there but added the effect infobox parameter duration. i'm not sure how u would represent that however b/c u'd have two numbers w/o text in the infobox. --VVong|BA 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a horrible idea. We should never intentionally lie to our readers. Certainly, we know that quite a few of them have bugs in their decriptions, but we should never just ingore what is written. Instead, it's our base until we can show evidence to the contrary. Backsword 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
style="color:#555;">BA]]
- "effect type"? Must say I've never heard the term before. And if this confuses me, who, if I may say so, have a good understanding of both the game and wiki, how will it affect others? See it from the perspective of the average reader; it's something called type, it's part of the desciption of a skill, and the value is often identical to that of a skill type name (yet means something else). How could they not read it as skill type? Backsword 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Avalanche is a spell wich appears in the effects monitor because its effect has a duration. So, it's slightly mislabeled in-game since it actually works like a hex spell. Backsword's right, saying it's an enviroment effect is plain lying. We should leave it with the nice and simple Type=Spell, Attribute=No Attribute, and Campaign=EotN from the skill infobox, end of story. Then add a note about the hex spell thing, and there you go.reanor 04:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- except that in addition to being a no attribute skill, it's also labeled as a common skill. imo, that's worse than labeling it as an environment effect. --VVong|BA 05:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Common skill, why?reanor 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- b/c thats how the skill infobox works when u don't give the skill a profession. --VVong|BA 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The infobox works like that because it true. It's not very valuable info tho', and I'd prefer if the infobox didn't display anything for common skills where the prof parameter was unset, and the skill unlearnable. 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- how can u say the infobox labeling is true when it labels the skill common? it's so "common" that exactly zero characters whether player or npc share its use. even if we give it type spell, i don't think it should go back to the skill infobox unless we also modify the skill infobox to place these skills under the correct category. then again, i don't think it should go to the skill infobox period b/c i think that gives the wrong impression about this skill. ereanor says it acts like a hex, which i would agree w/ up to a point. it doesn't, however, act like a hex if u consider any player skills which would be affected by a hex. just as cleansed has an anomaly note, i think wherever we place these skills they should get a note. also, i don't buy the duration explanation. b/c skills like Stone Spores and miasma have a duration and hex like effect, but they have the correct wording in their description. i think this is something anet overlooked. also, if u think avalanche still fits the skill infobox, what about Icy Ground or tar? those are both spells but are triggered by terrain and they don't go away like avalanche. labeling those as no attribute skills might be technically correct, but that's extremely deceptive and of no practical use whereas labeling them as environment effect is of some practicable use. --VVong|BA 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about "u", but I can say it's true because it is, to the best of our knowledge. I guess we could claim that eg. Avalanche is an Elementalist skill, it would fit thematiclly in water magic, but we have absolutly no evidence of that. So we default it. And the same is ture of other skills.Backsword 08:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- the word common indicates that it is shared by some group. in gw that means any profession has access to them. skills like avalanche or icy ground are shared by no group in the entire game, therefore common is untrue and wrong by definition when applied to those skills. it isn't common in any sense of the word. --VVong|BA 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about "u", but I can say it's true because it is, to the best of our knowledge. I guess we could claim that eg. Avalanche is an Elementalist skill, it would fit thematiclly in water magic, but we have absolutly no evidence of that. So we default it. And the same is ture of other skills.Backsword 08:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- how can u say the infobox labeling is true when it labels the skill common? it's so "common" that exactly zero characters whether player or npc share its use. even if we give it type spell, i don't think it should go back to the skill infobox unless we also modify the skill infobox to place these skills under the correct category. then again, i don't think it should go to the skill infobox period b/c i think that gives the wrong impression about this skill. ereanor says it acts like a hex, which i would agree w/ up to a point. it doesn't, however, act like a hex if u consider any player skills which would be affected by a hex. just as cleansed has an anomaly note, i think wherever we place these skills they should get a note. also, i don't buy the duration explanation. b/c skills like Stone Spores and miasma have a duration and hex like effect, but they have the correct wording in their description. i think this is something anet overlooked. also, if u think avalanche still fits the skill infobox, what about Icy Ground or tar? those are both spells but are triggered by terrain and they don't go away like avalanche. labeling those as no attribute skills might be technically correct, but that's extremely deceptive and of no practical use whereas labeling them as environment effect is of some practicable use. --VVong|BA 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The infobox works like that because it true. It's not very valuable info tho', and I'd prefer if the infobox didn't display anything for common skills where the prof parameter was unset, and the skill unlearnable. 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- b/c thats how the skill infobox works when u don't give the skill a profession. --VVong|BA 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
