Talk:Half ranged

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Someone with a major in English needed[edit]

What is the best way to name the following pages:

Is it OK to talk about "half-ranged" or is "half-range" better? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they're both correct, Deadly Haste uses "half-ranged". -- Gordon Ecker 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, range is a noun, verb and adjective. I was going to say it shouldn't have an "ed" on the end on the basis that only verbs do but says its a verb. How about that? 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Ranged" is an adjective but is "range"? Or at least, it is with an amount, like "half-ranged". Wierd. 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No skill interaction = false[edit]

The sentence "No skill specifically interacts with half-ranged attacks." is false. See: Deadly Haste. Sora267 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement is correct, Deadly Haste's description is "Enchantment Spell. For 10...30...35 seconds, half-ranged spells cast 5...41...50% faster and recharge 5...41...50% faster.". -- Gordon Ecker 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be correct, but i find it to be arbitrary that that line even exists considering there are two half ranged attacks on the page at least from a quick glance. Its a bit confusing, the in the line about deadly haste it specifies that it only effects spells. The fact about there being no skills that interact with half ranged attacks may warrent a note at the bottom, nothing more.

accurate cast range[edit]

"60% of the Danger Zone radius instead of 120%" is not quite accurate. Full cast range is 1248 gwinches (half range skills are indeed exactly half of that), compared to 1012 for the aggro bubble. That's 123.320158103%. Writing that in full is probably far too pedantic for this wiki, but rounding it down to 120% doesn't seem sufficiently accurate. What would be the best middle ground? I'd say round to the nearest whole percent, but then half range would be 61.5%, so you're stuck with a decimal point again. Putting the absolute value in gwinches is an option, but that's not very meaningful for people who are don't think in terms of the Scorpion Wire leash range. For now, I've just fudged it by saying "slightly more than", which is at least more accurate than what was there before. Mist Y (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning as a note, but I'm fine leaving the main description partially inaccurate - I would speculate that the difference here (and with how other skills sometimes have small variations in distances) is due to human error, and that they're intended to be the same. I'm not really sure if this sort of thing merits a {{bug}} or {{anomaly}} template, but it's worthy of documenting. horrible | contribs 19:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Human error by those who documented the ranges on the wiki, or ANet implementing the weird numbers? If the former, it's our job as editors to fix those errors. If the latter... well, since we're speculating, I would assume cast range is actually supposed to be 125% of the aggro bubble. Aggro range is 1012; the closest round number is 1000. Cast range is 1248, very close to 1250, which is exactly half of spirit range and quarter of party range. So no, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that 120% was the value intended by ANet.
As for a {{bug}} or {{anomaly}} template... well, the game does function correctly in this regard, so it can't be called a bug. It's only an anomaly in the sense that a couple of ranges use round numbers, but the overwhelming majority do not, so they aren't really anomalous. Let's just stick to documenting the game as it is, avoiding inaccuracies but shying away from unnecessary details that have no meaningful value for normal players. Mist Y (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
human error in regards to how the distances were originally coded. If 125% is more accurate, then that's what the wiki should use. horrible | contribs 02:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Rounding to 125% seems kinda reasonable, but then what would you say for half-range? Is that 62.5%, or do we round that to something else? If you use a value that's not exactly half, even a casual reader is going to raise an eyebrow. Besides, we really shouldn't introduce deliberate inaccuracies to the wiki, purely based on assumptions of what ANet intended. Otherwise you might as well delete Guild Wars Eye of the North because it was supposed to be Guild Wars Utopia, or remove all reference to PvE because GW was originally supposed to be a PvP game... Mist Y (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Depends. Are most half-range skills close to 62.5%, or is there enough variation that 62-63% would work? I'm totally happy with 62.5% in either case, but if we want to avoid decimals then the latter might be an acceptable compromise. horrible | contribs 03:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I just tested them all except Resurrection Chant (and of course Tongue Whip koz I can't equip that and the bow attacks koz they don't have cast range) and all of them are exactly half. It's not 62.5% though! It's 61.660079051%. I'm starting to wonder where you're getting your numbers from... Mist Y (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I'd be in favor of marking it as 61⅔%, 61.66%, or 62%, in that order of favorability. Also, I went with 62.5% because that's what was mentioned in the previous comment, presumably because it's half of 125% (the previously mentioned rounded value for casting range vs aggro bubble range). horrible | contribs 01:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we just list the actual ranges (in gwinches) on the Range page, and on other pages (like this one) just state that the values are approximate? I really don't like saying inexact numbers without adding "about". Mist Y (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would be against that. I'm not a fan of using (presumably) unofficial terms in general, and I'm also not a fan of listing information in a manner that can't be verified by readers without the use of external tools. horrible | contribs 16:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "in-game units of distance" should be acceptable then? It's not a name - just an accurate description of what we're referring to. Meanwhile, "gwinch" is not an official term, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented, much like other terms created by players, such as "40/40" and "conset". As for requiring external tools, we already have plenty of pages full of information extracted from the .dat file. Do you also object to those? What about pages for historical content? Anyway, it is possible to measure those distances without using Toolbox or whatever - that just happens to be an easy and convenient way to do it. If there's an actual rule that forbids using information acquired through TB then fair enough, but can you link such a rule? Mist Y (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you actually want me to answer all of those questions, or are they simply rhetorical?
While I don't object to this data being used to ensure accuracy on the wiki, I do object to displaying it on main articles in a manner that could be construed as approval. This is an official platform, and (IMO) the main-space generally needs to avoid anything that could be considered a stance on something anet hasn't officially commented on. The discussions on TexMod have been divisive enough in the past, and this is a much bigger can of worms.
Suffice it to say I feel the topic merits caution, but I would defer final judgement to a community discussion or the bcrat team - (User:Tanetris, User:Poke) when it comes to such a decision. horrible | contribs 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You could answer them if you want. I'd like to understand your exact stance on this. In any case, my goal here is to avoid stating inaccurate values without making it clear that they're approximations. Displaying false information on the wiki erodes user trust. Mist Y (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
How do we actually get these exact numbers? I mean those 1248 “gwinches” and stuff? Are we sure that this is accurate enough that we can trust the value exactly?
As for what we should put on the article, I personally think that we should favor values that are easy to grasp by readers. Having a 62.5% is not exactly useful since it’s difficult to image what that will actually be like. In that context, deciding between 61.66% and 62% or 62.5% is also not really helping either. Instead, having some imaginable value like “about half of the danger zone” will be a lot more useful to the reader.
If we are certain that the numbers we have are really accurate, and in order to explain them properly we have to use an imaginary “gwinch”, then I would say that we should go for that as additional details on the actual mechanics. So favor the easy-to-understand values, but offer more mechanical detail elsewhere for those that are really interested in it. Kind of like damage calculation is unlikely useful for the average player but still super interesting to read if you are into the game mechanics. poke | talk 13:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The numbers are certainly accurate, yes. I tested them thoroughly with the distance monitor in GWToolbox++. Whilst "gwinch" is not an official term, it is actually a real measurement of distance in the Guild Wars code. We know that it's an inch because of skills like Scorpion Wire that tell us their exact range. Anyway, I agree with all that poke said, but I think the phrasing "slightly more than half the danger zone". Mist Y (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)