Talk:Spirit range

Was the hope of this page to show different ranges of effects? Such as the effective range of Nature Rituals vs. attack range of binding rituals? G R E E N E R 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Other area of effect skills have their own "list of X skills"; The Mad King's Influence and others have used this keyword which was missing. The attack range of spirits is equivilent to Longbow range; how does one compare passive environmental nature rituals to descriminating attack binding rituals? --Falconeye 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack spirits use their attack skills with a 'weapon' that has 0 damage and the same range as longbows. It is also affected by height. "Spirit range" actually refers to the common size of an AoE created by passive spirits, not to the range of spirit attacks. And so spirits that attack and spirits with an specific AoE like Destruction have no Spirit range, and I can't think of any skill with has the same precise range as spirit AoEs. Skills like Kournan Siege have a bigger range. MithTalk 13:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So it was justified in splitting this article into two: instant/duration effects with literal Spirit AoE; and those with aggro/projectile/aoe's with an maximum effective ranged matching/exceeding that of 2.7 radii. --Falconeye 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is caused by how ANet uses the word "range". It may mean "targeting range" or "area of effect range" depending on the context and skill. I edited the range article to clarify all of this. I thought of splitting it into "targeting range" and "area of effect range", but the wiki is for people to quickly check things, and people looking for info about either kind of range will be probably looking for info about the other, and look just for "range", and so I abandoned the idea, keeping both so they can be compared in the same page. I put as many links to "target" and "area of effect" as I could so people can check those pages too, trying to make the distinctions clear. MithTalk 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, 'range' is still just the distance. Nearby range is still nearby range even if there are no nearby-targeting skills, and spell range is still spell range, even though there are no skills that create spell range sized AoEs, much like a meter is still a meter and a kilometer is still a kilometer even if you use kilomteres for one thing and meter for another. So even if we have separate articles for 'area of effect'(listing all existing sizes of Aoe created by skills) and 'targeting range'(listing all maximum targeting distances for targeted skills), the 'range' itself is still an official term ANet uses in their skills and documentation. So I don't think it should be removed altogether. I don't know if I'm explaining myself here. MithTalk 21:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I get those, it just doesn't stop the frustration regarding Skill infobox, the target/range/aoe trinity, etc. I am thankful that some have been resolved (like Untargeted skills vs. self-targeted skills). --Falconeye 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The move suggestion is completely unintuitive. All you need to do (and this page does) is define your term. So, no move needed. --JonTheMon 23:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've long advocated that the simplest solution is to have a single article that covers all distance measurements and transclude individual pages (or subpages) for each jargon. I don't like the idea of mangling range to do this, but it's much better than inventing additional terms, like targeting range. (I prefer distance which is unambiguous, generic, and covers the same criteria, but range gets the job done.)

There are only two points of confusion:

1. English (and ANet in particular) is not always careful about distinguish distance-to-target (one dimension) and area-of-effect (two dimensions, measured by a radius, the distance from the center to the edge).
2. Our {{skill infobox}} was never setup to deal with properly classifying all the different ways we want to categorize skills. In particular, it has trouble distinguishing between range as a distance-to-target, area of effect (as a 2D range), and any other way in which distances are relevant in skill effects.

The first is easily resolved by following Mith's example: define all the game's distance-related terms of range. I recommend that we transclude from the each specific term's article (so that they stay in synch) and that we include both a chart comparing the distances and screenshots that better show the comparative distances.

The second issue, categorization of skills, cannot be addressed by inventing terms and moving articles. It's an issue with the infobox's original concept and current programming. Let's not try to fit square pegs into round holes; the problem is that we need some square holes and some round pegs. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As I see it:

• "Target" is for the broadest set of creatures the user of the skill can target with it. It is never what the skill itself will target on its own regardless of target chosen, since we can't see how the skills internally work. If when used a skill is applied on the user, or on their location, or picks targets on its own regardless of target, that's marked simply as untargeted (| target=none), because the skill user has no control over what the skill targets. Some skills have internal targeting behaviors (like Double Dragon picking targets when you give none or target a foe), and we can't see that working, so we are limited to note what we can see. With double dragon, we can chose the target, and the broadest range is 'ally' so its target is "ally".
• "Range" is for the maximum distance at wich a user can be from the target to activate a skill. If a skill has a minimum distance too (like some Junundu skills) that would have to be added manually. To have a line you need two dots, and untargeted skills have no target, so they also have no range (the skill infobox should ignore range altogether if target is set to "untargeted", "self" or "none").
• And AoE is for the size of the biggest AoE the skill can create. Skills can create multiple AoEs, and the biggest is usually the most relevant, so all other AoEs have to be added manually (See: Shockwave). We just can't have multiple parameters for that, there could be lots of them (Annihilator Beam creates a series of AoEs in a line).

But I think I get this particular case. The problem is not in this page or its name. Spirit range DOES exist. It's a distance. In the game, it is inconsistently called "in range", "within range", "range of (the) spirit(s)" and "spirit range" (I really wish they picked a term and stuck to that), we can research which one is the most used by players, or throw a dice, or any other method you like, and stick to that one term orselves, and add the others in the article with the chosen name. But in this particular case, the skill infobox is categorizing all spirits as "Skills with spirit AoE", ignoring if they are attacking spirits or not. To fix that, one must set their aoe parameter to "none". The target should also be set to "untargeted" too, now that were are at it. After we choose the generic term, the autocategorizarion could be either changes to match "Skills with <chosen name> AoE" fixed, or stick with "Skills with spirit AoE" for skills with an aoe that has "spirit range". MithTalk 02:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we factor in that -all- spirits (attackers included) technically have a spirit AoE regardless of having/not having an "environemental-effect" (checking for same name/type within 2.7 radii)? Can that still work with setting aoe parameter to "none". --Falconeye 06:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider that more of a mechanic. Like when maintained enchantments are removed after leaving compass range, or when the oldest minions are killed when new ones are made. We don't know how is that checked, for all we know they could just check distances from each other without using AoEs at all, or have an AoE that "ticks" constantly checking for other similar spirits and killing those in range. However it's made, it's a general property for all spirits, and it could be confusing for players who read the category at the bottom and think a spirit will attack with spirit range. 'Mere existence' as an AoE effect is a bit obscure for an effect, don't you think? MithTalk 06:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. ^_^ --Falconeye 07:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't object to Mith's outline for dealing with range/distance, but I do object to trying to deal with the {{skill infobox}} in this discussion. Let's make sure we have clearly defined terms (and articles that support and clarify them) and then we still need to rationalize our categories before we can decide what we want from the infobox. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I prefer to make things clear, make all plans and preparations beforehand, and then the job is done faster and easier with less changes and even less work to do. Maybe we should start a project for it. To solve issues for things like how to deal with "half range" and with differences between the categories in the in-game skill, the verbose descriptions and the concise descriptions; before anything else is done. That would also prevent having things changing things around inconsistently. Things would eventually settle anyways, but that way is faster. MithTalk 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)