Talk:Range

Where did the numbers of this article come from?
Melee can hit up to barely the inside of the second layer of concentric circles. There is no way that is only 1/80th of the longbow range. I can believe touch is 2ft, but not melee.

Additionally, this article is entirely inconsistent with Bow, at a ratio of approximately 3/4.

Thus I would very much like to find out where the numbers used for this article come from. -PanSola 09:56, 13 February 2006 (CST)


 * Well, I foudn the numbers on the website, but also found blatant inconsistency in the numbers. Removed all feet measurements, substituted with some radius measurements that are more meaningful. -PanSola 22:13, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * The numbers were taken from the offical website! I'll dig up the link again if you give me a minute. I hope I find it, since ANet have restructured their site. The numbers can be found in the Prima Guide too, consistent with www.guildwars.com. -- 22:32, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * Dammit, I can't find it any more. It was in the Online Manual, in the Glossary. -- 22:38, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * Ha! It's still there, just not linked to from the main page any more. But Google still has it listed: -- 22:40, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Um, that was NOT the source of the info I deleted... The numbers that I removed came from here. -PanSola 22:45, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * I know the numbers can be found in the website. It's still there. BUT I also know the info is wrong.  Go to Nameless Isle and test the ratio of Melee range vs "Adjacent".  -PanSola 22:42, 17 February 2006 (CST)

Ok, I've found the range info on Prima Guide (cept I don't see nature ritual range) AND IT IS WRONG!
 * "Adjacent" range is NOT more 6.5 times greater than Melee and Touch range
 * Flatbow range is NOT shorter than Shortbow
 * Shortbow range is NOT significantly longer than aggro circle

While the ratio between adjacent, nearby, and "in the location" is correct, you need to give me a very good reason to believe those feet measurements.

What does a "feet" mean in the game? In the Real World, "feet" and "hands" are used in some cultures as common measurement because it is something they can easily compare by (adults of the same ethnicity have a relatively consistent foot/hand size). In GuildWars land, you can't directly measure things by feet. Things that easily measured are with respect to aggro circle and radar. After that is the Isle of the Nameless testing radius. That is why I picked them for the basis of my measurements. -PanSola 22:58, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * The numbers are given in an official document by ANet. That's a pretty good reason to list 'em. If we find that these numbers are wrong, we should state so.
 * However, I agree that a "feet" doesn't mean much in the game. But the "testing circle" doesn't mean much either. Yes, it is in the game, but as soon as you can't see it any more you have nothing to compare the numbers against. The best thing to compare everything against is the aggro circle, because that's what everybody has on screen at all time. I'd suggest that we convert the list into a table and list the various values side by side, for comparison. -- 23:44, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * I just checked Image:Area of Effect Birdseye.JPG again. There seesm to be a difference between "adjacent" and "adjacent to foe". This is most confusing. I assume 1 testing circle is equivalent to 13 feet. I'll check the numbers again tonight when I'm at home. -- 00:04, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Yes it is confusing. If you use a skill that affects "foes adjacent to target foe", then I expect the ones two radius away will not be affected, even though from the perspect of your target, two radius is "adjacent" range.  Anet really should've come up with a different naming convention. -PanSola 00:27, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Isn't the concept really simple? While I do now exactly know the range, this seems to be clear: "adjacent" means standing right next (adjacent) to you, and "adjacent to foe" means standing right next (adjacent) to your target, the foe.


 * BTW, even if the "1 testing circie to 13 feet" works out, I am still against using Feet as a basis of measurement in the GW world. There have been "measurments" that are popularily wide spread among fansites, that say shortbow are 60 feet, long bow 100feet, and even our own Bow article adapts that. But if you go by the 1 testing circle = 13 feet, then most likely the shortbow range will work out to be in the 80s, which means we will have to make a note, in every article that uses feet as measurement, that our feet has a different length than the feet on many (probably most) other fansites.  Add to the consideration that "feet" really doesn't convey much info in GW world, my stance remains to avoid using it at all. -PanSola 00:31, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * And to add to that... GW is not only played by people who use the feet and inch measurement. --89.50.189.8 22:07, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Testing images
vs

Official measurement
According to the booklet which came with my copy of factions: Aggro range 88 feet, spell range 88 feet, flat bow range 88 feet, long bow range more than 88 feet, touch range 2 feet, adjacent range 13 feet, shout range 40 feet. (Is flat bow range really less than long bow range?) --Gem 04:39, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, "long bow range more than 88 feet" is not very reassuring. Additoinally, touch range 2 ft vs adjacent range 13 ft is definitely untrue (at least when I made that big picture several weeks ago, they could've changed the touch range since but I doubt it).  You can test whether touch range differs from melee range easily on the Nameless Isle.  This looks like the same mis-information from the Website. -PanSola 04:40, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
 * These nubers match the original ones posted. The ones listed originally but missed now are: Nature Ritual range 200ft, long bow range 167 feet, in the area range 26 feet, nearby range 20 feet. I don't know if they are correct, thats just what they say. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:45, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Just retested [Blackout]], a touch skill. It definitely has at least 2 testing circle radius range, which makes the claim that it is 2 feet range questionable.  I am also fairly certain that the flat bow can shoot quite some distance outside the aggro circle.  -PanSola 04:49, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the people who write the manual are not the ones who put this stuff in the game. Maby this info is copied from the original source, which was outdated due to changes made to the game? --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 05:21, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Pan, you added one measurement in feet a few weeks ago. But looking at the history, you long ago intentionally removed all foot measurements. I just removed your last edit, but I'm kind of confused. I don't think it should be there, but do you have a reason for it? --68.142.14.33 02:46, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The 100 ft = recurve bow range is the only singluar measurement we know to be exact and accurate, thanks to scorpion wire. All other feet measurements are from non-reliable sources. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:19, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * If there's only one distance we can say is accurate, it's not very useful. Rather than note here what 100' is, just in Scorpion Wire would be best.  (Unless we start estimating other things in feet.) --68.142.14.33 03:21, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Not 100% certain this is completely accurate but because of how Scorpion Wire activates at 100' distance from target (Wand Range 1.2 Danger Zone Radius), i tried to fill in the blanks on the chart, and wanted to put it on talk incase someone wanted to check it before it went into the article:

|rowspan="2" style="font-weight:bold;"| Revelent text or description |colspan="4" style="font-weight:bold;text-align:center;"| Reference to known ranges |rowspan="2" style="font-weight:bold;text-align:center;"| Image legend |style="width:4em;text-align:center;"| Danger zone radius |style="width:4em;text-align:center;"| Testing circle radius |style="width:4em;text-align:center;"| Distance || Additional description | selection and enchantment maintenance || ~ 4.5 ||  || ~ 375' || slightly greater than radar range |style="background-color:black;color:white;"| black | spirit passive effect, soul reaping || ~ 2.3 ||   ||  ~ 191' 8" || half radar range |style="background-color:orange;"| orange | longbow*, flatbow*, spirit attack skill || ~ 1.35 ||   || ~ 112' 6"' || |style="background-color:cyan;"| cyan | wand*, staff*, recurve bow* and targeted spell (1) || ~ 1.2 ||  || ~ 100' || |style="background-color:magenta;"| magenta | shortbow*, NPC aggro range, within earshot(2) || ~ 1 ||  || ~ 83' 4" || danger zone radius |style="background-color:blue;color:white;"| blue | Half Range Spells || ~ 1/2 || 6  || ~ 41' 8" || |style="background-color:white;"| white | in the area or location || ~ 1/3 || 4 || ~ 27' 9" || 4th testing circle radius |style="background-color:purple;color:white;"| purple | **near or nearby || ~ 1/4 || 3 || ~ 20' 10" || 3rd testing circle radius |style="background-color:red;"|red | **adjacent, melee|| ~ 1/6 || 2 || ~ 13' 10" || 2nd testing circle radius |style="background-color:yellow;"| yellow | **adjacent to target/foe, touch ||  ~ 1/12; || 1 || ~ 6' 11" || 1st testing circle radius |style="background-color:green;"| green
 * }Raisu 18:27, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Note for the chart above: The Danger Zone Radius that i found for Nearby, Adjacent,, and Adjacent to Foe I basically guessed on by the fact that since Half Range Spells (previously named Earshot [changed it to the same row as Aggro Range because of the Nightfall change]) was 6 testing circle radius / 1/2 danger zone radius, and In the Area was 4 testing circle radius / 1/3 danger zone radius, i figured Adjacent to target foe was 1/12, adjacent 1/6, and nearby 1/4. As for the Distance column i just used Scorpion Wire's trigger distance and the Danger Zone Radius column to get the other distances. Raisu 21:12, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

Inaccuracies
Ok, after extensive testing I've determined that a lot of the info on this page is slightly off. I'll start from the smallest and move up to the largest
 * Shout range was omitted from the article (even though it's in one of the diagrams). This is 6 testing circles, most easicly confirmed using the dummies and ViM.  Shout range also uses "in the area" for its description, so I clarified this in the spell "in the area" description as well
 * Shortbow range is almost exactly aggro radius, perhaps one or two feet shorter. If you are on dead flat ground (which is important, as even minor elevations effect the bow range), it is impossible not to aggro a mob.  An elevation in the range of as little as 1-2 feet will allow you to fire and not aggro, which means that the range is not too much less. I'd personally put it at 80feet.
 * Spells have the same range as recurve/horn/wand/staff. It is important when testing this to make sure the terrain is dead level, but besides that, is easy to confirm.  A  guild scrim is the best place for this, as there's lots of large level places.  It's also important to note that the pathing engine will generally take you about 10 feet inside the max range of an action, so you've got to manually move to the max possible range.
 * Spells/recurve etc are 1.2 times the range of a shortbow. The ratio was calculated using chained wards + heal areas.
 * Long/Flatbow is 1.35 times the range of a shortbow, achieved using the methods above.
 * Spirit range was listed slightly larger than what it is. It is almost exactly shortbow+longbow range.  To test this (again in a flat spot), get the the max shortbow range for a target, drop a spirit, then run directly opposite the target.  Max longbow rage from the other side will be the same spot that the spirits range ends.  This was double checked with wards.  This range is also exactly half selection range.  To test this, get a teammate to drop a spirit, get to the edge of its range, drop another spirt, then go to its edge (in a straight line).  The edge of the second spirits range will exactly coincide with Heal Party range.--Pharalon 21:33, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I restored Phalaron's edit. Some of the changes I'm sure are correct (like shortbow, spell, and shout) and others like ratio of longbow and spirits to the aggro circle seem fine.  --68.142.14.34 23:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the tests. Prior to Factions, I was extremely vocally against the use of Feet as an in-game measurement unit.  There seemed to be two very different canons floating on the the various fansites, and the one on the GuildWars website is inconsistent with itself.  Now however we have Scorpion Wire (the only single reference to the Feet unit), but personally I still feel distances measured with on the radar or with respect to testing circles are more meaningful. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:09, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * For a long time Well of Power said 39'. I think even if everything were in "feet" I'd still prefer something like the aggro circle or testing circles as bases of reference.  --68.142.13.99 03:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Lots of stuff used to be listed in feet. Wells, wards, shouts, nature rituals, and probably a few more that I'm forgetting, so it's logical to assume that feet/inches are your basic ingame unit. The only real advantage to using them is when you start describing things like speed.  You can say that a shortbow's arrows travel at 150 feet per second, and base character movement is 24 feet per second.  Testing circles per second doesn't really roll off the tongue :).  If people understand what an in-game foot is, it also makes it a lot easier to describe equations for damage and range bonuses due to elevation, which really only work if you're putting feet/inches into them.--Pharalon 20:49, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * What is worth remembering, is that lots of stuff used to be (and many continute to be) listed incorrectly in feet. This problem even plagues guildwiki.  One of the classic error is the "Shortbow = 60ft / Recurve = 80ft / Longbow = 100ft".  I just checked the guru, and their range info is also messed up.  If I believe what 55 ft is from Guru, and I read on guildwiki that something travels x feet per second, everything will be extremely wrong.  There has been no standerd of how much a foot is prior to the release of Factions.  And even now that Factions is released, incorrect info is floating everywhere.  "If people understand what an in-game foot is" is going to remain a very big IF for quite some time. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:05, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Earshot
Looks like shout ranges are now described as "within earshot" in skill descriptions. (I only noticed after Heach changed "Shields Up!".) --68.142.14.33 02:32, 14 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The newest update notes state:


 * Adjacent: Melee attack range.
 * Nearby: One and a half times Adjacent range.
 * In the Area: Two times Adjacent range.
 * Within Earshot: Three times Adjacent range.
 * Range experts might want to confirm/whatever. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It matches the information we already have in the article (which uses circles from the isle as a unit). --68.142.14.19 23:35, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

From the history of nearby
Before I redirected it to range, it contained:
 * For offensive spells (like Chain Lightning and Chaos Storm), this can be determined by the red dots of the enemy on the mini-map. If two enemy red dots do not touch, then they cannot be affected by the same AoE spell.

Seems true, but doesn't fit into the way ranges are presented here (whether before I turned it into a table or not). Someone add it in if they can in a non-awkward manner. --68.142.14.19 08:27, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, this would be highly dependent on the user not resizing their minimap. I don't think it has a place in the article. Kessel 21:37, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Preview Event Earshot
The Update Page says that it was not reverted, whle this page says it has been, confusion here. Which is correct?Just Frag Me 15:54, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't know about this very moment, but I added the note to the update article after verifying in game. I can't test again right now.  It's easy to do on the isle of the nameless and to the limit.  --Fyren 15:57, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The earshot range has been increased to the aggro bubble again, like the night before the release of Nightfall. So the information provided right now is incorrect. --androidgeoff 12:44, 03 January 2007

Minions and monster skills
A simple (perhaps dumb) question, what is the actual range of Bone Fiends for example? or ranged monster skills for that matter. I heard/read previously somewhere (but i can't figure where :doh:) that spirit attack did use the shortbow range, any infirmation or confirmation?. --Leonim 05:45, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Spell range for minion spells. If there isn't a corpse in range, it tells you invalid target.  Monster skills would probably be spell, besides attacks, and there might be some touch ones that I don't know about.  Don't know about spirit attack range, but it's definitely at least longbow range.  I don't know how to test if it's longer off the top of my head.  --Fyren 07:19, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the quick reply, I meant the attack range for bone fiend creatures. Whereas, the spirit attack range was actually stated (deep) in the spirit article, so i updated this article.
 * Anyway, informations about danger radius proportions are not consistent between bow articles pages and here : longbow is stated 1.35 here and 1.6 nearly everywhere else... and I'm not good at translating screen impressions. ;) --Leonim 07:56, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the info here is correct. See . --Fyren 09:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, I don't know about the minion range. --Fyren 09:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Minion Range(Bone Fiends) is shorter than Wand range, yet is further than "Half Spell Range". I would say it's 75% spell range, or in between normal wand range and half-spell range. Again, assuming you're on level territory. --MagickElf666 08:51, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

adjacent
I think it is strange how the adjacent section works. Its hard to get happen but if you get enough melee creatures attacking you they will circle adjacent then start to form alother row more in the nearby area but you can still attack them and they can attack you in melee. I see this while using my spirit bonder to solo trolls if there are enough trolls.--Coloneh   21:17, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * :( no more spirit bonding... Im not sure if there are any other build that can get enough attackers at once so this would be really hard to test but try having one side against a wall or even in a corner so the attackers have less space.--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 00:54, 29 October 2006 (CDT)

Half range
Could someone obtain the distance circle for "half the normal range" spells like the assassin's dagger-throwing skills and Healing Whisper and add it to the image? --Son of Urza 23:09, 2 December 2006 (CST)
 * I assumed "Half Normal Range" meant half your aggro circle. It seems that Ice Spear makes me run up to about that distance. -- Gorfax Silverdale 12:24, 17 February 2007 (CST)
 * It's half of normal spell range which is a little larger than the aggro bubble. It's "targeted skill" on the list which is estimated at 1.2 times the radius of the bubble.  --Fyren 13:05, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Radiuses
The plural of radius is either radiuses or radii. "Look it up." --Fyren 01:47, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Radiuses sounds really weird and I have never heard someone use that (I don't doubt you are correct, just never heard it). Can we go back to radii because it sounds more correct anyway?&mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 01:51, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Not really. Radiuses sounds like English while radii sounds like Latin.  --Fyren 01:55, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Now one on the table is labelled radii, and another is radiuses. And I think radii sounds correct.
 * Tell my why it should be in plural at all. There's only one radius for ever entry. "Additional description" is in singular. 193.44.6.146 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, just realized. I appologize.


 * On the subject on English vs. Latin plural form. Depends on the word, on the word focus I dissagree with the plural foci, radius however, I think radii is fine. 193.44.6.146 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

disclaimer
This information is wrong.. why are we in the business of listing things on some other website? official or no. This disclaimer should be moved to the top of the page, maybe even with the ambiguous tag, or better yet the numbers changed to actual in game experince (similar to the numbers you find on the bow page).--NurseMyth 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The disclaimer seems to say "don't worry what the manual and GW site tell you, its inconsistent and inaccurate. we got the facts right here."&mdash;♥Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Earshot=In the area=Agro bubble?
Is it just me or are both these "measurements" nearly the same with each other and the agro bubble? Justing6 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The word is nearly. In the area is diffrent, smaller, than Earshot. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Area is smallest of the three. I can't remember which is bigger (between earshot and bubble), because spellcast range is slightly larger then the aggro bubble.--Gigathrash  20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got confused and thought that the shortbow range, blue, was in the area, because the colors were similar. If it was that big in the area skills would be the best lol. Justing6 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unyielding Aura
should have its own category of ranges here, because its range is the explorable area. XD ــѕт.  мıкε  21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you mean is that it has no range - like some scrolls and consumables. You could call it "unlimited". And Unyielding Aura certainly has range when you cast it. --◄mendel► 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I meant that you can't rez someone who's in a different explorable area, basically, but that should be obvious enough. Maybe we should make a note specifically for consumables and Unyielding Aura? ــѕт.  мıкε  03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)