Talk:Attribute

I'm not sure on my terminology here, I guess I played too much CoH ; p. Anyway, Passive / Active benefits from attributes. Better ideas for what to call them? This article isn't finished by a long shot, just a brain dump this morning. Gravewit


 * Corrected some things, but I think the terminology was fine Gravewit :) - LordBiro/Talk 03:05, 23 May 2005 (EST)


 * Also, how many points do you get per level? Gravewit


 * I'll add that later, I think they are in line with level until level 10... I would have to check though - LordBiro/Talk


 * You get 5 points per level until level 10 (45 points), 10 points per level until level 15 (50 points), 15 points per level until level 20 (75 points) and there are two quests which each give 15 attribute points as a reward, to make a total of 200 attribute points. roofle

one says casting time, another says activation time. None of theese sites exists yet. Since cast is in many descriptions that influence this and "activation time" is not, i vote for "cast" ["Guild Wars" "casting time"] wins a google fight against ["Guild Wars" "activation time"] with 23.200 : 573 !
 * Activation time is the term used in the game. And it is used in Skills article. Also this link is about the actual time it takes to cast a spell, not casting in general. So it has to be casting time or activation time. btw I believe the word 'cast' means the actors in a film or something like that. The actual verb for casting is 'to cast'. I vote activation time because it is used more in here and in the game itself. --Geeman 22:33, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

geeman wins a google fight against ollj with 7940 : 1420, wee!

Lie 1: Activation time is not used more in the game than the verb cast. But of course you have to read the skill descriotions to get that. Only "rust" says "to activate signet rings" because signets kinda get activated while spells get cast! Just tell me were the game uses "activation time" Lie 2: Just because someone used "activation time" in the skill level, wich i changed to casting time and you changed it back to Activation time, doesnt mean Activation time is better. Lie 3: The Skills Artivle is in fact much about casting in general! Lie 4: The word cast is also being used as verb. And i never saw castings in Guild Wars! Lie 5: Of course Greenman Wins a fight against Ollj, what did you expect? what does it mean? absolutely nothin!

Greenman ignores my arguments, suggestions, he lies, and vandalisms in Skills and Attributes weee.


 * I stand corrected. I checked the GW Online Manual and found out that the offical word is Casting Time. So I changed all the Activation Times in Skills Casting Time. Still, no need to get mean and start calling people names. But I still think that you should not link to 'cast' If you really want to link something, link to casting. Although there is really no need since casting is pretty much all explained in Skills. --Geeman 23:39, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

This is too big and too complicated
Ok, this article is getting too big and too complex. Anyone wants to volunteer to clean it up? Other than you Ollj. :) --Karlos 10:29, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Agree.. needs to be simplified a lot, I just came on to check something and all the numbers scared me off ^^ 15:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestions for reform:


 * 1) Move sections Attribute Spending and Skill Bonus into Guide to spending attribute points.  Also move the article Attribute point spending there (or just put everything under Attribute point spending and categorize it.  I personally prefer guides to have the word "Guilde" spelled out in the article title).
 * 2) Remove the entire section Damage Bonus, make a reference of damage affected by rank but skip details and link to Damage.  If the chart is deemed of value, move it into a subsection under Damage.
 * 3) Move the section Attribute Reassignment into Attribute point.
 * 4) Finally, if information feels too scattered, make Attribute point a section of this article instead of its own article.  Attribute point will redirect here.


 * Comments? -PanSola 22:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Karlos, Skuld, you guys think this needs to be rewritten, but you have no opinion whatsoever on my suggestions? Come on!  Tell me why my ideas are no better than the status quo (or even worse)! d-: -PanSola 00:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd simply remove everything after the "attribute" section besides the section on readjusting ranks. I don't think the sections I'd cut either say anything useful or say anything that's not in the damage or spending article.  No opinion on merging in the points article.  --Fyren 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category
Which category can this go under?
 * None, unless we come up with a category "Game Basics", "Guides" or something similar. But I wouldn't see a point in that. --Tetris L 02:20, 26 October 2005 (EST)
 * I agree with Tetris L, we don't need to categorize everything. At a certain point it just becomes pointless.  --Rainith 03:31, 26 October 2005 (EST)


 * True, we need not categorize everything. This, however, IS game terminology. --Karlos 03:48, 26 October 2005 (EST)


 * Disagree, categorise everything! If it isn't categorised it can get lost. 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

New Skill Bonus explanation
New explanation by Rezyk is clearly less clear than the previous version. It's more mathematical and less readable. I personally did not understand Rezyk's version and had to read the old version to get what he meant. I, however, have severe mental shotcomings, so I will see what others say before reverting. --Karlos 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it is actually less clear, it is clearly not clearly less clear. We clear? =) --Rezyk 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The clarity of your new explanation is unclear. I hope that's clear. :) --Karlos 02:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

20 Rank in an attribute?
''The third method is using a weapon and/or a Focus Item that has the ability to give a +1 bonus to an Attribute when the player uses a skill that is linked to this attribute. This ability is always chance-dependant and has a variable chance of success (10-20%). Because both the weapon and the focus can have the +1 ability, there is a chance of a total +2 Attribute bonus with this method.''

Checking all the green and collector weapons, I find no caster righthand weapon that give +1 attribute bonuses. Of course that's not conclusive, but I would like verification of at least one person who has a wand/rod/cane/trunchon with +1 attribute bonus (for ANY attribute). Otherwise I am going to assume the ability to reach 20 rank in certain attributes is a mistaken generalization based on swords, bows, and staves having +1 attribute bonuses. Also according to Weapon upgrade wands etc don't have +1 attribute bonuses. -PanSola 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We discussed this already somewhere. No one said they've seen a wand with a +1.  --Fyren 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, edited the article accordingly.-PanSola 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

+1 attribute triggers on any skill
Originally the article implies a +1 Soul Reaping bonus would only have a probablity of activating when using Soul Reaping skills. Since that doesn't make any sense (Soul Reaping has no skills), and there really IS a focus item with +1 Soul Reaping bonus, and the bonus description only mentions "20% chance when using skills", I've edited the article to mean it has a probablity of activating whenever a skill is used. -PanSola 19:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How could you tell the difference? --Fyren 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If somebody dies when a necro is using a skill and +1 soul reaping is triggered, the amount of energy gained would be different. Though I haven't personally tested it, when there is lack of contary test, I opt to go with a literal interpretation of the bonus description (though which, Anet has messed up from time to time). -PanSola 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

question on the "average" in Attribute Spending
why is the average higher than every single number? I read the bullet points under it three times and still have no clue. -PanSola 21:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At first I thought the average might include runes and headgear, but that doesn't make much sense either. Also, if I may, not only is the article overly complex, the grammar could use some fixing. Normally, I'd do that, but I don't think it would help comprehension much in this case... --theeth 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)