Template talk:Skill infobox/Archive 3

Auto-categorization

I've added auto-categorization for adrenaline, exhaustion, upkeep and sacrifice for DPL. -- Gordon Ecker 06:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the upkeep category with auto-categorization into Category:Maintained enchantments since it was redundant. -- Gordon Ecker 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cats needs to e in the top section, else nocat won't work. This means any use on userpages on so forth will e included in cats. As an example on how this causes prolems, see the adrenal skill list; it's including a user gash version that causes major malformating. Backsword 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. -- Gordon Ecker 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Something still seems to be wrong with it. -- Gordon Ecker 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to close the "{{ #if: {{{attribute|}}}"-part before you start the other categorizations. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 08:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I didn't notice that it wasn't closed. -- Gordon Ecker 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) It is hard to understand how the categorization is made up. I've re-compiled it on my pretty, own sandbox for the skill infobox here, that way it is a little bit easier to read. Perhaps an idea for this template too? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it changes formating but not functionality?Then I only makes things more readable? If so, I'm all for it. No need to ask even, always a good idea. Backsword 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some stuff for this infobox in my sandbox I'd like someone to take a look at. Backsword 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Are you referring to the elite echo skill type not being displayed correctly? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The code I was thinking of implementing is ;[[Skill type|Type]]:{{ #switch: {{{type}}} | echo | Echo | Title | title | Skill | skill = {{ #switch: {{{elite}}} | y | yes | true = [[Elite]] }} [[{{{type}}} (skill type)|{{ ucfirst: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }} }}]] | #default = {{ #switch: {{{elite}}} | y | yes | true = [[Elite]] }}[[{{ ucfirst: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }} }}]] }} Was wondering if anyone saw any problem there. Backsword 11:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've got it working as it is supposed to now. See my skill infobox sandbox for the code, and this for the implementation. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you were refering to now, I originally had the code like that too, but wanted to pull attention towards it not being a single term, as we don't mark that some other way. Backsword 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the meaning of what you write here Backsword, can you clarify it a bit for me? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get what your point was at first, but seeing your code I realised you were talking about case on the skill type name. That code was intentional on my part as I wanted to make it more noticable that it was two different things marked there. But I'm fine with this version too, being that was how I originally coded it. Backsword 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think you do have a point I guess. I just re-coded your suggestion so that it resembled the original way of showing the "Type"-parameter. Since we're probably the only two people concerned with this, let's get to a consensus: do you want to have the Elite and the Type clear as two separate links? The way I'm thinking of (and I guess you were too) is to make Elite start with a capital, and the type too. So that you'd see Elite Hex spell. I'm neutral on this point, so if you are in favor, I'll modify the code again to reflect this change. If you're neutral too, then we'll keep it as is. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was just an idea. Don't mind either way. My current code has it with lower case. Backsword 09:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

lower case, please! - anja 10:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add auto-categorization for attack chain skill pre-requisites (must follow a lead attack, must follow a dual attack, must strike a knocked down foe etc.). -- Gordon Ecker 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Added features to skill infobox

Anyone opposed to me merging User:CoRrRan/Skill infobox into Template:Skill infobox? Top of the page has a nice diff-link where you can see the differences between the two infoboxes. Also an example of implementation is here. Changes:

• Implementation of very nice new icons for (mainly) the assassin profession.
• A somewhat clearer way of showing the category code.
• Improved display of the "Type"-parameter in the infobox.
• Bugfix for Celestial skills not showing the 'pve-only' parameter. (Although I think this has been implemented already.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd defenitly like to see this implemented. And sooner rather than later. I did find some things that are non optional in my eyeds. Hope you don't mind me adding them to your examples page. Backsword 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticed knockdown is missing from the req list. We don't have KD icon tho, as far as I know. Backsword 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now have an unpdated version at Backsword/Sandbox/RSI which is based on CoRrRan's code, with the above mentioned updates to categorisation, and listing of campaign and attribute. Backsword 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is your "RSI"-page a direct copy of this version? If so, we can merge your version into Template:Skill infobox directly.

One version before, though the difference is only that I added the noinclude bit, which wouldn't be copied anyway, on my own. Backsword 07:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And do you have a suggestion for a KD-icon? Perhaps I can make something, but I'm thinking of a small dust cloud on the ground, but I doubt it'll be pretty (i.e. LordBiro-style). --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if we can't volunteer Biro for that. Backsword 07:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Celestial Summoning's three professions don't work with the infobox or DPL, but I'm not sure if it would be worth fixing. -- Gordon Ecker 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Skills can't actually have more than one profession, so I'd assume that's a common skill given out to a limited number of profession. Backsword 07:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update messed up elementalist skill list

The recent update made to this template messed up List of elementalist skills. The problem lies in the fact that Mark of Rodgort/Skill history is being catagorized now because the update removed the catagorize = y/n option, and its inclusion is causing formating issues. --Valshia 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, taken care of by slapping a {{historical content}} on the offending page. --Valshia 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

monster skills categorization

anyone have any objections to adding pve-only parameter to monster skills? this will take them out of the common skills category which is something that's been bugging me lately. nvm, i just tested this and it will not take the skill out of common skills categorization. since monster skills are a subcat of special skills and have no profession, they're both special and common skills. to me, that's just completely nonsensical. --VVong|BA 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This will have to be done, I think:

  {{ #if: {{{attribute|}}}
    | [[Category:{{{attribute}}} skills]]
    | {{ #if: {{{profession|}}}
        | [[Category:{{{profession}}} skills]]
        | {{ #ifeq: {{ lc: {{{special|}}} }} | monster || [[Category:Common skills]] }}
      }}
  }}

Although this will only trigger for 'monster'-specials. If there are more variations, the #ifeq should be changed to a #switch. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i just had a thought. what if we put "Monster" as the profession for monster skills? that would remove the need for a special parameter for monster skills and at the same time categorize the skill as a monster skill. i'm not sure if it would screw some other things up though. are there monster skills that are specific to a profession? i can't think of any but that doesn't mean they aren't there. --VVong|BA 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

anyone want to write a bot to add the pve-only parameter? or failing that tell me how to operate a bot myself? --VVong|BA 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Before changing multiple pages I would like to wait till the current discussion on GWW:SKILLS is finished. Maybe, when merging alls other skill-like infoboxes into this, we have to do multiple changes; and then, of course, I'll let a bot do that. poke | talk 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's common for players to think so, 'Monster' is not a profession. They have normal professions, and while most 'moster skills' can be used by monsters of any profession, some do have a specific profession. Eg. Splinet Shot. Backsword 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i realize it's not a proper profession. it just would have been an easier way to solve this issue. but as u say, if there are monster profession specific skills, that would invalidate this approach. i tried looking up ur skill but i didn't find it. i assume it's a ranger skill which would require a bow or something. nvm, it was just a misspelling of "splinter." that does appear to be profession specific. --VVong|BA 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad......Bad.....Update

← moved to GWWT:SKILLS

concise description parameter

it adds all pages that use that template without this parameter to Category:Skills missing concise description.
(Well, for some reason it doesn't do so if used on user pages.)
But all removed skills have this Category now, and it's impossible that they even get one (unless they're implemented into the game ofc) I'd suggest to change this parameter so that it doesn't include skills from the historical content. —ZerphaThe Improver 01:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, historical skills are missing concise descriptions. ;) But I agree, it's probably best to exclude them if possible, since the main use for the category will be adding them to those that should have them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DPL to get all skills and filter those without a concise description out? :P poke | talk 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

what's DPL? I thought we could add a switch to the concise parameter and make that if "none" for the concise description is chosen, it's simply nothing displayed. Like that we would have a way to manually remove those skills from this category. —ZerphaThe Improver 01:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

May be possible to extract from the dat. Try asking the smurf. Backsword 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should the skill descriptions of these removed skills have concise descriptions? I hardly doubt Anet added one for them as well. (Unfortunately, idk how to read the text files in gw.dat. I read sth about a "hex editor" and downloaded one, but this didn't work :/) —ZerphaThe Improver 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After I crashed the wiki with that last night, here is a DPL table :P User:Poke/sandbox/3, use it carefully. I'll leave that page there until there are no skills left. poke | talk 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a huge problem, since this is a temporary category to ease editing that will be removed once the normal skills are finished. It's not that much to sort through, just ignore those skills that doesn't have a concise description? - anja 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, that's also right...i thought it'd be helpful to remove these skills from the category by doing so, as it will likely require some weeks until the list is complete and the parameter can be removed again. (btw, i already wondered this morining why GWW didn't work, poke xD - DPL stands for Disambiguation pages with links, right?) —ZerphaThe Improver 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DPL = Dynamic Page List, and sorry for the problems I made still make (?) :P poke | talk 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be true, Zerpha. I'm not sure really how irritating they are in that category, if alot of people think they are would could work something out that doesn't crash the wiki ;) - anja 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

after having approximately found out how to use Cheat Engine - thanks to Smurf - i noticed that i were wrong with my supposition! At least Mantra of Celerity does really have a concise description (!) :D I'll look at the other removed skills now, too. Is that a signal of hope to see this skill finally in the game? —ZerphaThe Improver 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that the concise descriptions are automatically generated by looking at what the skills do.. poke | talk 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah, you're very likely right —ZerphaThe Improver 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

switch for autocats

Bloodletting is an example for a skill in the main namespace that uses this template, but should not be categorized. Is there a way to add a switch here, that turns of autocats like on userskill info box? --Xeeron 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or simply ignore that comment and wait for me to figure out I used the existing switch the wrong way, hrrmm. --Xeeron 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

hehe :P poke | talk 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quest reward

Instead of manually having to set each skill category, there should be a boolean(Yes/no) parameter to set that. Many skill rewards are counted, but the Resurretion Signet, one of the first and most important skills that all characters may receive during questing, is not categorized as 'obtainable by questing' like the rest. Nor any of the Eye of the North PvE skills. MithTalk 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

difference PvE/PvP

now that the diffwith template works, how about adding a link for pvp versions to a diffwith PvE? and/or vice versa. - Y0_ich_halt 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be more convenient to just include a comparison with PvE version or comparison with PvP version subsection in the notes section with a side by side DPL comparison of the two skills, or add a link to List of PvE and PvP versions of skills in the see also section. -- Gordon Ecker 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Campaign default

It says the default for the campaign parameter is none, but in fact is Core. What to change? File:User Horsedrowner avatar.jpg horsedrowner 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected the param description. -- ab.er.rant 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Skill icons

Would it be possible to have the skill icon image be placed into a 64x64 cell who's background color would be either black or the elite gold depending on the elite parameter? The idea would be to re-upload (the horror!) the icons at 56x56 to get rid of the border elements in the image for a smaller filesize but still be able to easily distinguish between the elite and non-elite skills like you can now. Sounds Risky | 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be able to distinguish between the two on the actual skill pages, yes, but not when it's used elsewhere (e.g. {{skill icon}}, direct usages of the image on userpages, etc). -- Brains12 \ talk 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I don't know how to myself, so I'll just give a suggestion here. If a skill is elite, why not change the background color to the "elite" color? Currently, setting {{{elite}}} to y only changes the type to Elite {{{type}}}.<HORSEDROWNER> 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to have uniformity in colours with infoboxes. The yellow band around the icon should show from a glance that it's elite, anyway. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Further parameters for autocat

Given that skills, unlike most components, change quite often, we have a number of skill lists and articles that needs frequent updating, and with every skill change there is always some page that is forgotten. Should we add some parameters for fundamental effects of skills, used only for autocategorisation, so that we can have those pages dynamiclly update? I'm thinking traits like range, target, aoe, removal (conditons, enchats, hexes) and causing (specific skills, including self reapplying). ~Would mean there was one article to update when a skill changes. OTOH I know some don't like long code.Backsword 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since people have obviously read this, and not responded, I'll take that as no objections. I have a seemingly working version up on User:Backsword/Sandbox/expsipo. Backsword 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Animation

"Available here" is a bad way of linking imo. You should link a relevant text, not a "here". Is there any other way we could word it so it doesn't sound so.. weird? Just "Available" or "Yes" would work for me, but it's not perfect. - anja 13:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Available" or "Yes" would be better, but it's still not perfect. I have no idea what would work there. Maybe we could stretch the Animation green cell across the entire infobox and keep just "Animation" centered as a link, but then the infobox would look a bit weird. Erasculio 13:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Click to view" or something like that? poke | talk 13:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine, imo. That's probably the closest we'll get to a "relevant link", short of having the filename there. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity isn't this supposed to be working already on skills that have had their animations uploaded because I checked one skill that does have an animation and it doesn't seem to work. I checked in my sandbox to make sure the code was correct; not that I doubt Poke just wanted to eliminate any possibility of a typo or something similar; and it worked fine. The only things I changed was removing the includeonly tags (for preview testing purposes) and changing the name parameter for the Animation section to Armor of Unfeeling to test if it worked.

Finally since I'm already here the Click to view text sounds better than the current Available here for the link. --Kakarot 15:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind purge fixed it... --Kakarot 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Click to view works better :) - anja 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

/agree --SilentStorm 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree (also, going to the skill articles, clicking on Edit and then on Preview shows the recently uploaded animations, even without editing anything; that's what I'm using to know if the animations have been uploaded to the proper place). Erasculio 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Click to view seems fine. Just available woulden convey that one should click to see it to normal users. Backsword 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Targatting parameters

Are wards self-targetting? I thought they were untargetted like PBAoE spells. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no untargeted skills. All effects must happen somewhere so a location is always needed. Wards are invoked on the location of slef.. Perhaps it is that you don't have to select yourself to target slef? You can test this with eg Healing Breeze. Backsword 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars seems to have two types of targets, which I will refer to as primary or direct targets and secondary or indirect targets target. The primary or direct target can be directly selected, skills with descriptions which state that they interact with targeting, such as Spell Breaker, Shame and Hex Breaker only affect primary / direct targeting. Secondary / indirect targeting is determined automatically, and can interact with effects described as interacting with healing, damage, attacks or skill use, but does not interact with effects described as interacting with targeting. Some skills only have primary / direct targets, some only have secondary / indirect targets and some have both. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Skills_that_target_foes

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs

Skills that don't target foes are being automatically placed here, examples: Natural Temper, Warrior's Cunning. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that is a problem in the {{skill infobox}}, not an actual wiki bug. -- Wyn/talk 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would concur, but I didn't see a place to report "infobox bugs". I could put it on the talk page, would people actually notice it there and fix it? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 11:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many people have them watched, so yeah, probably. -- Wyn/talk 11:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Like me. I took out the default value for now until we get this sorted out. --Antioch 07:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AoE = none does not work but "For Great Justice!" is a shout with no AoE so either we need to fix it so AoE = none does something or remove the default AoE. I'm removing the default AoE. I am going to do some testing tonight but I also suspect that there are some skills that have no target. Putting target = none gives similarly poor results. I will verify this and get back. Misery 14:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Or I could put a capital N on none and everything could work. That works too. Misery 14:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Parameters need capitals is a bad practice. Could we change this? - anja 14:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I could fix it through trial and error, but I am told that does unspeakable things to the job queue :D Misery 14:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Weapon of Agression targets none, Wielder's Remedy targets none, stances target none. Tested using Zealot's Fire. As we have no "targets none" category and such a category is insane, I am removing the default targetting for these types. Misery 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this will be the case for many other skill types but I don't have time to test right now, match in a few minutes. I'll test more later. Misery 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Range parameter

Since I'm unsure if it would break any other categories and since I don't currently have a lot of time to check, the current range parameter seems to work incorrectly for half-range skills; as shown on Resurrection Chant for example. This template adds the Halfranged skills category which should rather be Category:Half-ranged skills instead which was added manually on the page. I haven't so far seen anything that changing the code to [[Category:{{{range}}}-ranged skills]] rather than the current [[Category:{{{range}}}ranged skills]] but haven't fully checked as of yet. --Kakarot 12:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both are wrong. The infobox is missing a space, and the affection of an extra hyphen isn't used, surprisingly. Backsword 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, if the hyphen isn't used then why does the Half-ranged skills category exist and is used on quite a few pages but the Half ranged skills category does not exist and al the ones that are in it were added on Feb 17 when you added the "range = half" parameter. Similarly why does Half-ranged skill exist whereas Half Range redirects to Half-range skill? --Kakarot 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A historical artefact mainly. Induviduals did bits on their own with no coordination, and noone was interested and or had the time and energy to change things. I think I've fixed most of it, tho' there are some random redundancy left. It doesn't do any harm so I myself am unlikly to try to do something about it. Backsword 17:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think "shout" shouldn't automaticly add skills to the Category:Skills with earshot AoE. There are loads of shouts that affect the user only. Anyone has a clue on how to implement this without going through all the shout skills? — Why 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two ranges. Let's call them "target range" and "effect range".

• Target range is the distance required for activation, usually the same for all the skills of the same type, with exceptions like half range, touches and skills that only target self.
• Effect range is the range of the skill once activated. This range is usually explained in the skill description, but not always. There can be more than one effect, and so, more than one range, Phoenix is an example of that.

For example, most shouts will target self and have a 'withing earshot' effect range. But there are also shouts that target one enemy like "Coward!".

So we can't categorize just by skill type, since chants, preparation, stances, rituals, traps and glyphs are mostly the only skill types that only target self. MithTalk 11:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, it's not that important because AoE = none works fine for categorising. We have already started categorising using that method so to redo it the other way wouldn't make a lot of sense. Misery 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

K, w/e. I didn't want to do it anyawy. — Why 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not really possible to write code that gets it right every time. The game just isn't systematic enough.

So it comes down to which assumtion means the least edits to induvidual pages, esp. future ones. For most skill types, asuming that they have no AoE would be it. But for shouts, earshot seem the more likely one. At least to me. Backsword 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Targeting categorization

Currently, some skills such as Charm Animal, Palm Strike and most or all echoes, pet attacks and well spells are being miscategorized as being self-targeting. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pet attacks do not actually target the pet. They target self and require the pet to be in range. They work more like shouts than anything else, and some pet skills are actually shouts. MithTalk 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You can test using Zealot's Fire, see where the damage pops up, at pet or at self or nowhere, some things are target nothing like stances. Misery 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tested, pet attacks, ranger shouts, PBAoE spells and wards don't trigger Zealot's Fire. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's also the case for traps, wards, chants, rituals, minion spells, well spells, miscellaneous corpse exploitation spells and shouts which aren't manually targetted. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Corpse exploitation you have to be careful with because they aren't "targeting an ally" so ZF wouldn't trigger anyway, but from the limited testing I've done I'd believe everything else you said. Misery 09:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ZF seems less than useful, given it's many anomalys. Backsword 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What anomalies are you talking about? Can you propose another useful definition of targeting? Clearly there is some difference between self cast only enchantments that trigger ZF and those that don't, I would consider the difference to be the targeting condition and suspect that Shame/Guilt would show the same results, but that is more difficult to test requiring 2-3 people and a scrimmage and also only works on spells. Misery 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider Divine Favor the anomaly. It causes any monk skill which doesn't directly target a foe or ally to heal the caster. As for the corpse exploitation skills, I was only testing the to see if Zealot's Fire treats them as self-targeting, I only tested pet attacks and ranger shouts on allies, I did the testing next to the Practice Targets on Isle of the Nameless with a pet and no heroes or henchmen. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't consider divine favor an anomaly. Skills in GW ALWAYS require a target to pinpoint the location they are going to be casted. PBAoE skills just have the activating characters themselves as the target of the location. It would make sense to make it like that in a game like GW in which skills change a lot from time to time, since if you ever want to change the skill to cast on other people, you just have to change the possible targets from 'self' to others. If you activate a skill that can only target others while having autotarget active, the client will automatically select a viable target. So any skill that can be cast without selecting a target, can be considered to 'target self'. MithTalk 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory, except it won't trigger Shame or Zealot's Fire, so apparently it's not targetting an ally (in this case yourself) at all. Well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it's actually impossible to know without testing. All that being said, does anyone know a monk spell that doesn't trigger divine favour on anyone? Or a monk skill that triggers divine favour, but not ZF? It may not be anomalous at all, maybe all monk spells target someone. Exceptions may be monk SKILLS such as Contemplation of Purity, which don't trigger DF at all, I don't know if it triggers ZF, could be hard to test considering you lose all enchantments when you cast it so we may in fact never actually know for certain. If you want an example of a spell that doesn't have a target, try Weapon of Aggression, it won't trigger ZF, Wielder's Remedy or Shame, but you end up with a weapon spell on yourself. Misery 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Monk spells which directly target foes, such as Banish and Scourge Healing, don't trigger DF, but I'm assuming you mean monk spells other than those which directly target foes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... >_> Misery 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we must note some differences. There are multiple 'targets' for skills.

• First, there is the activation target. That is what is required to the skill to cast. If you don't select one yourself (or you can't as with corpses) the client will select one for you. If no target is available, you get a red message and the skill won't activate. Skills that can target yourself will always do so if you don't select a target, ALWAYS. Thanks to that, you can change the binding of the F key from 'Select self' to 'Cancel select'.
• The we have effect targets. For example, with 'Heal party', the effect targets are every single party member. And effects with range will have a 'anything in range' targetting behavior.

If you consider that, then Shame and Zealot fire affect the effect range, when the effect is unleashed upon an ally. But divine favor affects the activation target, the creature in which the skill is centered to activate. That's why when you activate 'Heal party' you get the Divine Favor bonus (target:self, effect:party) and when you cast skills on other allies you trigger Zealot fire (target:ally, effect:ally). I'll try to make some testing about this on the Isle of the Nameless' dummy circles and a some heroes. MithTalk 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are actually not making any sense at all. Divine Favour and Zealot's Fire always trigger on the same target if they both trigger, the activation target as you called it. I am going to suggest we go with in-game nomenclature and definitions which uses "target" for Shame and Zealot's Fire and spells that specify a target such as Heal Other, rather than made up definitions by members of this wiki. Effect targets don't actually seem to be relevant for anything ever. The automatic target likewise doesn't actually mean anything, all "target ally" skills default to you if you select an enemy or nothing, it's not a special case that requires separate documentation. Misery 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

{subst:ri}Hmmm... How about calling taget? (CTRL + Skill)
AFAIK, "target: self" skills (say, Faithful Intervention gives no target, resulting on "I'm using Faithful Intervention!", while "target: ally" (like Healing Touch) will bring a "I'm using Healing Touch on <target name>!" (target name could be player's own name). Using a "target ally" skill while targeting an enemy should bring the same effect.
Not sure about Charm Animal, since (holding CTRL key) you can either yell "I'm using Charm Animal on <enemy name>!" or "I'm using Charm Animal on <ally name>!".
Not into the merit it will or will not fail. But "target: other ally" (like "Make Haste!") doesn't even allow you to use the skill while targeting yourself or an enemy... (invalid target displayed, no message in Team chat).
BTW, if you activate Charm Animal outside spell/shout range, your character will run towards target until it's close enough to cast/use it then display a "This creature is not an animal." message. :P Yeah, still unsure how this could be used to help categorizing skills, but... maybe someone else could have another idea? ;) --NIN37 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Check and Check-true?

I see it in Black Spider Strike but not in the code, wtf? -- Halogod35 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ALSO, could someone add a code for Skill Rewards category? -- Halogod35 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WHat are you talking about. Backsword 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Go edit black spider strike, you'll see two variables: |Checks = hit and |Check-true = poison -- Halogod35 02:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's remnains of testing done for a now abandoned project. Part of the project was implemented; you can see it in the infobox as reqs being displayed in the costs section. The rest is not used. Backsword 02:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, now make the code for skill rewards. >: -- Halogod35 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Self targetting shouts.

Since this template automatically makes shouts have the category Skills with Earshot aoe, I put in |aoe = none to cancel it (for skills like I'm unstoppable) it makes the [[Category:Skills with none Aoe]]. Someone fix it. -- Halogod35 22:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, needed capital N. -- Halogod35 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)