Talk:Monster skill

Term
So, do we officially use the term "monster" now? I'm all for it. I'd like to get rid of "Bestiary" alltogether and split it into "Monsters" and "NPCs" instead. --Tetris L 16:07, 29 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Not really. It's just that the game calls these skills monster attacks or monster skills. So, no point in calling them somehting else. Bestiary is a catalog of all life in Guild Wars. This includes monsters and others. I am neutral on whether we should call it Bestiary or Monsters or Creatures all are fine. --Karlos 17:07, 29 Aug 2005 (EST)

Glint
How about adding a little confusion? Glint's Crystal skills don't have this logo. They have their own icons. ;) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 18:24, 29 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Yeah, I am not sure they are monster skills. They are unique to her. Even the facets do not have them. The ones I put were the ones labeled by the game as being monster only. The "Crystal" skills do not have that description, do they? --Karlos 19:56, 29 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * They do. See Crystal Haze and Crystal Hibernation. That's the actual in-game text under skill description. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:57, 29 Aug 2005 (EST)

Mursaat Towers
What about "Mursaat Tower"? Should we list it here? Is it a skill anyway or is it a condition? I assume it is a hex. And to add to the confusion "Mursaat Tower" is the name of the skill as well as the name of the thing (creature or building) that uses the skill. --Tetris L 16:59, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * It's neither a condition nor a hex. It's got a dark green border for the icon.  Shouts and spectral agony also have the same border.  --Fyren 19:45, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * So Mursaat Tower goes into the same category as Spectral Agony? Then we should list it here. --Tetris L 20:22, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)

Thievery
I wonder if a Mesmer could steal any of these skills with Arcane Thievery. Probably not. --Tetris L 19:54, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Arcane thievery only steals spells. --Fyren 19:58, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * What about Inspired Hex or Inspired Enchantment? Do those work? --Tetris L 23:39, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * The only hex or enchantments I know of are Glint's (or is Glint's, only the exhaustion causing one is a hex?). Never tried.  --Fyren 23:54, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Wait a minute, if Mursaat Tower or Wurm Siege is a SPELL then Arcane Thievery should be able to steal it. --Karlos 05:35, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * ... unless monster skills can't be stolen per defintion, which is to be confirmed. --Tetris L 05:40, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I just confirmed it (where I found that wierd Claim Resource), you cannot capture Wurm Siege EVEN THOUGH you can interrupt it. Which I find to be a bunch of Charr doodoo. :) Why can't a tiny helpless ele like mine wield "Wurm Siege" for just 25 seconds? :) --Karlos 05:48, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)

Defeaning Roar and Nibble
Does anyone have a clue what Defeaning Roar does? I fought a pak of Bone Dragons tonight and watched my henches and they didn't seem to suffer from anything. Does anyone know or even have an idea? I am guessing Nibble is some form of healing skill for Ghouls. But I have no idea what the roar does. --Karlos 21:36, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)

Skill template in Monster Skills
This has been mentioned before, but no decision about this has been made. So how about using the skill template in monster skills too. To help you decide here is an example how it would/could look:

The skill type could also be added if it is known. I think this would be good for consistency. --Geeman 22:25, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Seconded. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 22:45, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I think it's not a good idea. It's useful for normal skills because it also contains data, but there's nothing but the icon to put there for monster skills.  The only "useful" thing is the icon.  --Fyren 23:10, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I know there won't be much to info in the template, but it would, as i said, it adds consistency. So people would instantly see that this article is about skills without even reading the text. btw Fyren, please don't remove the profession part from this template here, it is kind of my suggestion how the template could look. --Geeman 03:19, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Oops, didn't mean to save that. Was just seeing how it would look.  --Fyren 03:42, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * There would be in fact one item of valuable information in the template: The Skill Type. Some of them are Spells which is important to know when it comes to interrupting. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 04:15, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Not all spells will have useful info in that box, but some of them will.For example, Ollj was approximately correct on Wurm Seige it does take about 2 seconds to cast and the Wurm can cast it every 7 seconds or so. So, that's Activation time and recharge time for you. :) I can also estimate Giant stomp take about 1 sec to activate (when they pick up their foot and start waving it around) :) and takes about a minute to recharge. We can indicate that this is "empirical" info by placing a tilde "~" next to the number. I think it would be REALLY useful for people trying to take out Glint to know exactly/approximately how much time it takes to cast Crystal Hibernation and when it will be recharged again. I say go for it! --Karlos 09:25, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)

NPC Skills
What about "Killroy Stonekin"? Killroy is not exactly a "monster", but I think NPC skills should go into this category too. --Tetris L 08:29, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * We could rename this "Non-player-skills" :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:53, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I agree, I think Non-player skill would be a better article name than this one, since the article refers to both friendly and unfriendly NPC skills. --LordBiro


 * The problem though, is that the game refers to the "monster" ones as "Monster Skill" or "Monster Spell" or "Monster Only." The exceptions are the NPC ones. I think the non-monster ones should not be in the monster skill article. We can keep them here temporarily just so they are listed somwhere. But we should think of a separate name, and we should stop categorizing them as "monster skills" --Karlos 16:28, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I'm looking at Dwayna's Blessing and don't know where to file it. Is it a "monster skill"? I'll put it under "unique skills" for the time being. Also, I'm moving Claim Resource to that section. --Tetris L 19:27, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * If I may repeat myself: How about renaming this whole section "Non-Player Skills"? "Monster Skills" could be a sub-category where only the actual monster skills are in. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:34, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)

It's Coming, Tetris
Yes! It's about to happen soon... :) I will take out the list, move it to Monster Skills List and keep this a definition article and the ongoing soap opera of lists vs comprehensive articles will continue! >:) --Karlos 17:18, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I tried to dig out the page where the decision was made to separate definition articles strictly from lists. I'd like to explain why I think that separation often makes no sense. But I can't find the page. Help me out. --Tetris L 18:22, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Just start a thread in Style and Formatting. If people feel like talking about it, they will. IF people feel the topic is closed they won't. You don't need to find the old thread. I honestly have no recollection of where it was. I'm not going to put in the effort to look though. Too late at night. :) --Karlos 19:35, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)

Object Skills
What about effects caused by objects, for example the health regeneration effect caused by the water in the Maguuma Jungle. This is a skill too, called "Maguuma Fountain". Or the slow-down effect by the tar pits in post-searing Ascalon. This is a spell called Tar. Or Cleansed, which is already in the list. Where should we file such skills? --Tetris L 10:01, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * These are not object skills, this is Terrain Effects which include Tar, the Magguma Fountain, the walking on ice in the Shiverpeaks and the burning lava streams in the Ring of Fire. I am fine with starting a new article + Category for those. they are effects however, not "skills" they are always on in a certain terrain. --Karlos 16:09, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Well, I would have said the same. But then I noticed, when I looked at Tar, that the description says "spell" (I really wonder who casts it.) So these effects are skills, per definition. --Tetris L 16:24, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Let me throw in another one, just to increase the confusion: The energy effect of the Scepter of Orr. It is clearly bound to a moving object, not a fixed location. --Tetris L 16:26, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * OK, "environment effects" then. --Serps 16:30, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Why do the Scepter of Orr's powers have to be thrown in with TAR?! What do those two things have in common? Things that happen to a player? :) Keep them separate. The Scepter of Orr powers are Item effects.
 * This discussionis very useful though as it is shaping these different skills/effects into a nice category shape. The only reason we care about ALL those things is because of how they AFFECT us:
 * Category:Effects
 * Hexes (the same one we have now)
 * Enchantment Spells/Enchantments (the same one we have now)
 * Conditions (the same one we have now)
 * Environmetnal Effects
 * Tar, Burning Lava, Walking on Ice, Maguuma Fountain
 * Item Effects
 * Scepter of Orr
 * Ural Highstone (while you carry this item nearby allies hold their noses) :)
 * Monsters Skills (defined as being possessed by a CLASS of monsters)
 * Spectral Agony
 * Giant Stomp
 * Unique Skills (possessed by a sole creature in the game)
 * Chimera of Intensity
 * Kilroy
 * Glint's Skills
 * Dwayna's Blessing


 * And yes In this regard, FORGET about the game's label of "Skill" or "Monster Skill." What do you all say? --Karlos 16:50, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I am against renaming these skills to "effects", even though that name does make more sense to me. But by policy we always name the things the same as in the game, even if the in-game name makes less sense or even if it is flawed. So if the game labels these effects as "spell" or "enchantment", then they are skills, per definition. --Tetris L 17:41, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Did I say we should rename Monster Skills into Monster Effects? The Monster Skill article will still be there and define monster skills and the monsters skills will be categorized under Monster skills. The model suggests an encompassing category called effects. That doesn't have to be named by ArenaNet, just like Bestiary and Software are categories we came up with. The only skills that would not be categorized under that label are Glint's. And I don't care about the SPECIFIC categorization of Glint's skills, I care about the model. What do you (all) say? --Karlos 18:12, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I was talking about what you call "Environmental Effect" or "Item Effect". According to the game, those are skills too, even though "Environmental Skill" is obviously utter nonsense. I've never seen a "skilled" tar pit. Usually tar pits have an IQ of approximately zero. ;) --Tetris L 19:18, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

I'd suggest a structure like this:


 * Skills
 * Player Skills
 * Non-Player Skills
 * Monster Skills
 * NPC Skills
 * Object Skills (Effects)
 * Environmental (Stationary Object) Effects
 * Item (Mobile Object) Effects

We might merge Monster Skills with NPC skills (or "Unique" Skills, as you call them). The only real difference between the two is that Monsters are hostile and NPCs are friendly. (But what do we file pets under?) I can't think of a good combined name though. But I don't like the name "Unique Skill". The name is missleading, because some Monster Skills are unique to a certain monster too (like Agnar's Rage is unique to Agnar the Foot). And some Unique Skills are used by more than one creature, for example Dwayna's Blessing is used by all the gods' avatars. I prefer "Non-Player Skill", as suggested by Eightyfour and Lord Biro.

And we might merge Environmental Skills with Item Skills. The difference is really minor. The effects are always caused by some object, only in one case the object is stationary and in the other case mobile. I could agree to call them "Effect" in this wiki, simply because it makes so much more sense. But then we should add a brief note explaining that effects are actually skills. In any case they should be categorized as skills, cos that's what they are according to the game. We might create a new category "Effects" as a sub-category of skills, but normal skills like Hexes, Enchantments, Stances, ... shouldn't file under it, strictly only Environmental Effects and Item Effects. --Tetris L 19:55, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * You are completely missing the boat on my idea. Let me make a few things clear:
 * Monster skills will contain ONLY Monster skills. So, naturally, Agnar's Rage will be a Unique Skill, and yes I could not care if the game calls it a MONSTER skill, the game obviously calls it that for programming purposes, not for US.
 * The criteria for Unique skill is skill used by ONE creature in the game, ONE dude. Not a CLASS of creatures. That is EXACTLY the difference. If we find another beast that uses Soul Vortex then it moves from being a unqieu skill to a monster skill. There is no gain in dividing monster skills by NPC and Bad Guys.
 * I am categorically, hollistically and absolutely agains the name "object skills." Objects, do not have SKILLS. We are breaking the English language and common logic both to satisfy a messed up naming system in the game. On top of that, items are not "moving objects" The Scepter of Orr is just as mobile as the Great northern wall once you put it down.
 * The game's naming conventions for these effects are COMPLETELY based on a programming sense (i.e. this skill is of type A so that X, Y and Z properties apply to it, not because type A is what it IS). For example, Icy Ground is a SPELL!! Now, would anyone in Arena Net's design team say that slipping on ice is a magical effect? No. they classified it as a spell to give it certain in game attributes.
 * I believe the hierarchy I came up with defines things according to their NATURE. Much like the bestiary category and Maguuma Hunters. Devising other ways to look at those effects is fine by me, but for my suggested categorization based on source of effect on player, what do people think? --Karlos 20:10, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Our ideas are on separate boats, but hopefully heading for the same harbour. ;)
 * Like I said, I agree to use the name "effect" instead of "skill", even if that's what game calls it. Effect suits better (both by English language and common logic). I agree with you. Case closed. ;)
 * Note that I didn't call items "moving" objects, but mobile objects. Mobile as in movable, not moving. If you put down an item it is still mobile. Anyway ... there is no disagreement between us here. What I called "Mobile Object Skill" is exactly the same as what you call "Item Effect", just with a different name. And I agree "Item Effect" is the name that suits better. Again, case closed.
 * What for do we even need the separation into Unique Skills and Monsters Skills? I think it is unnecessary and a possible cause of errors and confusion. I don't see the difference in effect on the player. And a unique monster is still a monster. May I suggest again to merge the two. And if we merge them, let's call them Non-Player-Skills. A separation into unique skills and monsters skills would result in several NPC skills being filed under "monster skill". I have a slight problem calling NPCs "monsters". I think Non-Player-Skill suits better (both by English language and common logic) and should be used instead of Monster Skill, even if that's what the game calls them. Note the analogy to 1.
 * Even if we agree to use different names than the in-game names, we should not ignore the in-game names completely when it comes to categories. Actually the fact that the in-game names follow a programmers logic gives us a very good indication how the skills are structured according their effect on the player. And the effect on the player should always be the priority for our structure, more than the source of the effect. Our category tree should generally follow the same logic that the game uses. And in the game Effects are a sub-category of Skills. Not the other way round. I am strongly against making Hex, Enchantment, etc. a sub-category of Effects. That would be against the logic that the game uses. --Tetris L 22:27, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Right, just wanted to toss in my opinion, then I'll let you two get back to it.
 * Instead of Monster/NPC skills/effects/whatever how about Creature skills/effects/whatever. Minor semantics I'll note, but calling a human/dwarf a creature is better than calling them a monster in my book.  And I don't epsecially like the idea of calling Ressurect Gargoyles NPCs.
 * I think there should be a difference between skills caused by an object that can move in the game (Scepter of Orr) vs. an object that does not move in the game (tar, ice, The Great Northern Wall, etc...). Even if they are both just sub categories of the same main category of Object Skills/Effects/Whatever.  The reason I think this is that the objects that are moveable in the game can be affected by players more directly than the objects that are stationary in the game.
 * The naming conventions used by the programmers of the game do matter. I don't play around much with skills at the moment as my main character is just a tank. (I hits the monsters and makes them fall down dead.)  But I believe that there are skills that will have certain effects depending on if a creature is using a Spell/Hex/Stance/Whatever correct?  So if the Tar effect is a spell, and it can be nullified by a skill that nullifies spells that is important for people to know.
 * That's really all I had to offer on this, I don't really have much more to offer, so I'll step back now. --Rainith 01:42, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Commenting on Rainith's points:
 * "Creature" instead of "Non-Player" would be acceptable to me, but I still think "Non-Player" is better, because the name already emphasizes the main point about these skills: That players can't use them. Creature may be a bit missleading, because in the meaning of the game creature includes the player, for example Heal Area, which heals any creature within the range of effect, also heals the spellcaster himself.
 * All of us seem to agree that item effects should remain separated from environmental effects.
 * This is a good point. Let's have a look at Tar. According to the ingame description this is a spell. Not a Hex Spell or Enchantment Spell. If it was a hex or enchantment it could be removed, using a counter. But this is just a simple spell, and there is no way to prevent the spell effect. This is similar to all AoE spells that target a LOCATION rather than a foe (for example Ward Against Foes, Maelstrom, Symbol of Wrath, ...). These are spells that have a duration, but are no hex/enchantment. And because it is the LOCATION that bears the spell, not the player himself, it can not be removed from the player. It can not even be prevented with Spell Breaker, because - again - the spell doesn't target the player himself, but his location. This is 100% the same as a terrain effect. So actually it would even make some sense if we'd categorize such spells in the same category as environmental effects. I think that is what the game actually does. An Environmental Effect is nothing different than a spell that targets a location instead of a player. The definition is exactly the same, as far as I understand the game mechanics. Except that an environmental effect is indefinite and has no spellcaster. Think about it. --Tetris L 04:17, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)

Why is this page categorized?
Why on earth is this talk page categorized under skills? Is it because of the skill template being used on it? --Tetris L 17:41, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Yes. --Karlos 18:12, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)