GuildWiki talk:Suggestions/PvP mode

too much work for too little benefit. I pvp and use qrs a lot, (pve only) and (pvp only) in qrs work fine for me. &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 17:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was heavily discussed when PvP skills were first introduced, and it was decided it simply wasn't worth the incredible investment in coding time it would require for our coding geniuses.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be that difficult to implement since most QRs reference a template anyway, you'd just need to modify the templates to have a PvE and PvP section for split skills and then a template tag on a given QR page to tell it which notes to use for filling in the table entries. The most difficult aspect would just be spending the time updating preexisting QRs/templates. But a "Use PvP versions" button on skill lists would be an excellent idea, especially since the game's PvP has a strong following and is complex enough to justify it. -- AudreyChandler 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But apparently I am wrong, because I wrote that before realizing it was supposed to go on the Talk page, and Talk says the idea is settled. x] Alas. -- AudreyChandler 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really related to the suggestion at hand, but more on one of the cons listed. Included is a con that it won't invite new contributors to GWiki.  Last time I checked the purpose of a wiki is to provide easily accessible and helpful information, not to use that information to solely attract a contributor base.  If only 5 people use it, and none of them join GWiki as contributors, then the implementation was still worth it.  Not every thing we do has to be a giant hook to attract people.  Suggestions should be graded on how much they would help anyone, not whether those people it helped would then help others.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Roar.]]îğá†ħŕášħ  22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it really be that difficult? I'm a programmer, but I have no idea how the wiki is coded. Why not just replace the concise descriptions with the pvp descriptions? That would be much more useful, and would require less coding I think.
 * Well the problem with that is that costs, casts, and recharges are often altered in PvP splits as well. Not to mention that most skills would have concise descriptions, while a handful would have something else; that would be pretty weird. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean get rid of concise description completely, I never understood the point of it anyway. There are so many that are the exactly same character sentence just stated differently
 * For 30 seconds, the next 1...8 attack skills you use remove one condition.
 * (30 seconds.) Your next 1...8 attack skills each remove one condition.
 * Which is very nearly the exact same length. You could just write down that it uses x energy and x recharge instead in the description as well. Or you could make another skill box right next to the one that already exists with (pvp) on it. Where is the complication I'm not seeing? Do you need me to create a demo page? Spayced 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think very few people see any use in concise descriptions (I certainly don't); the thing is, we didn't create them. The concise descriptions were written by ArenaNet and are used in-game. Since this wiki serves to document Guild Wars to the fullest possible extent, we can't simply exclude something that large. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but why should we document Guild Wars to the fullest possible extent in one way but not another? In my view (and if you play Ritualist enough you will appreciate this) the knowledge of the difference between PvE and PvP versions of skills is much more valuable than the difference between normal and concise versions. You still have not addressed my view that applying this change requires, albeit not elegant, but simple solutions.Spayced 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)