User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Shortcuts/Range

Is there a plan?

Is there a plan to specifically designate a Target, Range, Area of Effect, etc, to all skill descriptions; that is to assume that all skills have the mentioned parameter (or others) that may prove useful to auto-categorization, or to wiki-users who may need such Advanced Search designations beyond the official categories as an alternative to standard search methods, regardless if they had one, or Not Specified? Example: there are three instances of Spirit besides creature/skill-type; those skills that effectively targets spirits; those skills with maximum effective attack/skill/ect. range of spirits; and those with an effective area of effect of spirit range.

Also, what is the difference between Radar Range, Compass Range & Party Range? Radar seems to imply the distance before enemies spawn or allies are grayed out; Compass range seems to imply that Grayed Ring at the edge of the compass (also the maximum attack range of foes like Urgoz). I sincerly hope you accomplice with whatever standardization you intend to do with this article; its annoying having to manually tag the above mentioned parameters (and more) beyond the most specified niche-associated use (like anti-summon). Because it has occured to me that in regards to range, species, auto-categorization, kitchen sink, ect... 90% of my personal frustration (and subsequent reverts) could have been entirely avoided. --Falconeye 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You've raised three distinct issues above: (1) what do certain terms mean? (2) Should the wiki use distance as a unifying concept for range and area? (3) Frustration, reversion, and standardization.

I've re-indented and responded to each individually. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On specific distances

1. Compass range is, by definition, the radius implied by the area that can be viewed on the compass. It's not necessarily tied to any skills. Technically, it should be within the area displayed by the compass (since it's an area, not a range), but that's too pedantic even for me.
2. Radar range is, by definition, the same. Compass is an official term for the heads-up display element; radar is a more colloquial term.
3. Party range is, by definition, the distance at which a party member can be affected by a party-range skill. There's nothing that I've seen that requires that distance to be the same as the compass radius. It seems possible that party-range might be slightly longer than the radar radius.

ANet doesn't seem to pay too much attention to any of this when they write their descriptions. My guess is that the area and ranger parameters inside the database specify an actual distance (meters or perhaps a set of breakpoints) and that they can be input distinct from the description. In other words, I can imagine a skill for which the range is adjacent and the effective area is nearby, but that the description says a nearby range and an adjacent area of effect.

That means that, before we get too caught up in the distances, we should really test out each and every skill. (Fortunately, the vast majority of them are accurate descriptions.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF)

On using distance as a unifying concept

There doesn't seem to be an appetite on this wiki to use distance as a unifying concept, which is why I've kept this article to confined within my user space. I think it's a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's good for the wiki. So, yes, I think it would be useful to have one article and use an unofficial term so that we can autocat all skills using a single definition. But no, I will not impose that idea on the rest of the community without clear and substantial support by major contributors, as well as anyone else who might opine. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On frustration/reversion

90% of your reverts can be avoided by not assuming that terms are related or by inventing new terms. Some of your ideas are good, but you put entirely too much faith in them...and you don't take enough time to assess the consequences of imposing a new concept, especially when you try to modify info boxes. If you are annoyed by manually categorizing something, then stop manual categorizations. Instead:

• State the problem you wish to solve, clearly.
• Propose a specific solution to the issue.
• Wait for feedback.
  • If there's no feedback, drop it.
  • If there is feedback, take it into account. Reformulate the problem statement and/or update the proposal.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Passive spirit range affected by relative height?

...really? So if I drop Recuperation on top of a bridge and then walk under it, I will be out of range? Vili 点 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the applies to column specifies active spirits, so Recuperation (a passive spirit) doesn't care. I admit...that's not at all obvious in the presentation :-( – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the wrong row; the "applies" column clearly specifies passive spirits. -- Armond Warblade 23:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Oops. Good point.

Ok, I remember someone saying that they got a longer range from Union or something when it was placed on a hill. But mebbe I'm remembering wrong.

What I am sure about it is that ... I don't trust much of our data on distance (range or area): sometimes people rely on 1-2 examples (and we know how inconsistent ANet is about terminology and matching descriptions to actual skill effects); I haven't seen much data on spirits; some in-game experiences don't seem to line up with what I've seen people report.

So, in the meantime, I'll remove the note about relative height from passives...and add a note about my personal distrust of current sources. Thanks both for spotting my mistake. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)