GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 1


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Warrior-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Warrior


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Ranger-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Ranger


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Monk-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Monk


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Elementalist-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Elementalist


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Mesmer-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Mesmer


 * - valign=middle
 * [[Image:Necromancer-icon.png]] ||Profession:|| Necromancer

Distinguishing Skills by Profession
We spoke a while ago about having different colors for skill boxes, and I was against it, as it restricts our choice of colors for other types of box, i.e. locations, beasts, items etc.

In order to provide some visual aids besides color alone I've created some icons using the same look as the ones for energy recharge, activation time etc. that are currently visible as Skill Details in the skill box. I tried modifying the template for this demonstration only, but that's not really possible, since it would affect all other existing skills, so the wiki code to produce this has been a bit "hacked" in order to demonstrate how a skill using these icons would look :)

Alternatively the icon could be included somewhere else. I've messed about and I think this sized icon is big enough to act as a visual to let people see what profession a skill is at a glance :)

Please let me know what you think! LordBiro/Talk 23:03, 29 May 2005 (EST)


 * Just topping this because no-one's replied yet :P LordBiro/Talk 17:49, 31 May 2005 (EST)

I like 'em! About to start going through Necromancer spells (at least all the ones I've unlocked so far) and will make sure me little icon gets in the box. Nunix

I just finished completing the first batch of Category:Blood Magic skills. The extra icon looks REALLY nice there! We don't have a metric tonne of skill entries filled out so far; I say break the current template, insert the new icon + profession entry in, and we'll tidy up the mess afterwards. Nunix


 * I was hoping someone would say that ;) I'll alter the template now, and I'll make the change to Life Siphon as an example. I'll also update the Style & Formatting/Skills page to reflect the change :) LordBiro/Talk 17:46, 2 Jun 2005 (EST)

While I think the icons Biro made look great, maybe it would be more appropriate to take the icons from the runes in-game? They would of course be true to the game but might not be recognizable by everyone (or most?) so, uh, it's just a thought. --Fyren 11:05, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Good suggestion Fyren, although in a way this seems inconsistent within Guild Wars itself. The icons on the site are modified versions of the icons in the manual. Guild Wars also has a seperate set of icons (most obviously visible in the menu of the Priests of Balthazar). As you might expect, I vote we stick with the icons we have :P hehe 21:00, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)

actually i am for skill colors by profession. even in the game itself, skills are colored based on the profession; orange for warriors, blue for monks, purple for mesmers, etc. and heck, even boss monsters are colored according to their profession. the 6 colors are really significant in identifying professions in this game. as for using colors for other types of info "i.e. locations, beasts, items etc.", there're still plenty of color we can use apart from the said 6. Nuble 05:23, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Well, I disagree there. We do all know the colors for the six professions that are used in-game, but what colour do we make Resurrection Signet and Signet of Capture? I think icons are the most effective option. I would like to see colours used to represent the different types of objects in the game, "i.e. locations, beasts, items etc.", if we did take out yellow(W), green(R), blue(Mo), red(E), purple(Me) and green again (N) then what easily identifiable colours would we have for locations? Orange? And then what about beasts? And items? Yeah, we could have different shades between them, but I think that's limiting our options too much :) But yeah, I think the point here is that we don't agree and there needs to be more discussion on the subject. LordBiro/Talk 07:17, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * gray for signets? we can easily differentiate between skill and non-skill articles with different background color of the info table, or different border style, or different layout of the table? Nuble 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Gray for signets, like the game itself uses. I strongly feel we should color-code infoboxes by profession, because, as previously stated, the game itself does this in many ways (monster auras, colors of skill icons, default armor colors, the entire Dragon's Lair zone). Tanaric 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Well that's 2 against 1 :( hehe, I would like some more people to be involved with this before we make any changes, but if that's what the majority wants then fair enough :P 21:27, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I say color code it like the game. The difference between a skill box and an item box should be obvious from the content.


 * Coloring the entire box is, I think, a bad idea. A few reasons:
 * 1) It will diminish the number of colors available for other tables. I hear someone saying "16 million colors baby!" but the reality is, the colors of the professions cover the basic ones (yellow, green, blue, purple, red) and as such will leave us with relying on variations of the same color to tell different things. This is a bad practice in UI design. If you rely on colors, they should contrast and be clear. Many people cannot distinguish color variations clearly.
 * 2) It will interfere with the color theme of the site itself and thus be in poor taste. If our main theme is this grey, then a whole bunch of series with a big purple thing in the middle will stand out, and stand out in a not-so-pleasant- way.
 * I suggest we color code only the background of the title area of the table. i.e like this:


 * {| border="1"

! Hammer Bash !! Winter !! Immolate !! Life Siphon !! Heal Other !! Backfire
 * - align="center"
 * Bla || Bla || Bla || Bla || Bla || Bla
 * - align="center"
 * }


 * We already only color the title area. Look up on the page and you can see that.  Furthermore, your table-thing broke the formatting of this page; please make sure to close your div tags next time. :) &mdash;Tanaric 00:46, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Sorry about the formatting issue. All I see is green: Hammer Bash Backfire --Karlos 04:20, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I think what Tanaric meant Karlos (although Tanaric will probably correct me! :P) is that at the moment only the title (and the bit saying "Skill details") is green, so your suggestion of only colouring the title is pretty much what was suggested in the first place. 08:02, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * At the moment, it's all green. And for some reason (Nuble's comments) I understood what is being suggested as coloring the entire table's borders or background. In any case, this is my vote. :) --Karlos 08:08, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)

Skill ranges
Let's talk about skill ranges. Most skills have increased effectiveness depending on a linked attribute. Normally we represent this by lower_range...upper_range. lower_range is obviously zero. What is the upper_range? I can see two useful ways to do this.


 * 12: This is the natural limit of attributes. Most skills grow linearly from 0 to 12, so it is easy to figure out the damage at any level up to 12. For example, a spell listed as 1...13 would most likely do 7 at a level of 6.


 * 16: This is the limit of primary professions (12, +1 from headgear, +3 from a rune). Some spells do more damage above 12, but the gain is smaller than normal. A spell listed as 6...50 would give an exact number for the highest damage possible, but makes it difficult to estimate the damage at level between 0 and 16. Also, secondary professions cannot achieve 16, so this can be misleading.

My feeling is to use 16. This gives us the absolute maximum which is more useful for designing a skill loadout. Players who care a lot about the exact damage of a spell will be knowledgeable enough to figure out the damage at 12. Players who don't care, won't know the difference. One downside of this is that entering the numbers will be harder since only people with primary professions and superior runes will be able to input the numbers.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I've been doing up to 14 on most of my skills, since I have most of the minor runes but very few major or superior. My feeling is that someone who's got a 16 available could go through and correct things if they were so inclined (the game alt-tabs so cleanly, after all!). I think this may fall under the auspices of "don't worry if all your information is 100% complete/correct", since it leaves things for new visitors to tweak and contribute to. Nunix


 * i personally think that the range should be left 12. additional information can be added for bonuses at >12 in an "Over 12" subtopic or something similar. Nuble 05:26, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I agree that 12 is the most sensible option. LordBiro/Talk


 * Why not use the ranges that the game itself gives you when you unlock a skill? No research necessary that way. Tanaric 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I would not use the ranges that the game gives when the skill is unlocked. Those ranges may be wrong. The only way to confirm if they are right, is to do the research.


 * Well, in that case, we shouldn't use any information from the game. Not weapon types, nor attribute requirements, nor anything else.  After all, they could be wrong!  (Oh, and please sign your posts!) &mdash;Tanaric 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Incidentally, that number range is 0-12; I never noticed before. So, yes. Standard range:  ... 

There seems to be a consensus for 0-12 so I'm going to codify that in the main article.

Format for Skill Ranges
What format are we sticking to? Just noticed a comment and want to be sure. Is it X-Y or X...Y? LordBiro/Talk 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (EST)

I've noticed people representing numbers in different ways on the skill pages. We should decide on a standard way. E.G. is it "does 5..18 fire damage over time" or "does 5..18 fire damage over time" or "does 5..18 fire damage over time" ? Gravewit (Moved)


 * X...Y for the numbers that are green in the game. (It would be nice if we could make our numbers green to match the game more closely.)
 * I'm not too fond of that. I know someone (Adam?) started making the armor pages look just like the armor pages on Guild Wars, using the same background colour (dark grey), and the same font (Palatino Linotype I think), and it didn't look fantastic. I think making it show the same info as Guild Wars is enough personally. :I LordBiro/Talk 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * just formated almost all of it into 8...18

Nonexistant stat in a skill box
From the Talk:Rebirth page.. Stick to whatever entries GW lists in the game (that is, what you see if you press K while in the game, or browsing skills in PVP character creation). If it's not there, don't 0 it, just leave it out. If there's some kind of outcry about "missing informatix0r" there can be a little note in the Style & Formatting/Skills article about the standard. Lots of Warriors skills DON'T have an Adrenaline component, as a counter-point; at most, maybe consider a Category:Adrenaline Skills if that would be something worth sorting by. Nunix

Hyperlinking
Added a small section on hyperlinking. What should we hyperlink other than Conditions? Skill descriptions are loaded with important terminology. We could make a policy to hyperlink everything meaningful. Consider a fully hyperlinked Conjure Flame.

Lose all "Enchantments". For 60 seconds, if you're wielding a fire weapon, your attacks strike for an additional 1...13 fire damage.

All those words are meaningful, but it seems too "busy" to me. I suggest that we only hyperlink Conditions and "fire weapon". Everything else should be obvious to anyone except the most noobish player. Comments?


 * Yeah, I dont think we need a standard for this, it's just common sense. It's an enchantment, thats important, other than that I dont think anything else needs linking, even though i notice fire damage is linked on the original. And I wouldn't say linking every noun is necessarily "fully hyperlinking". Take a look at wikipedia, most of the nouns in a page have an article on the wiki, but they aren't all linked. This is something that should really just be decided on a per-article basis in my opinion LordBiro/Talk 06:16, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * no need to hyperlink "wielding", ill do the job while walking over the skills... annd all hyperlings should be in their singular form.
 * Ollj, I dont think you understand how a discussion works. It's not very productive of you to just do whatever the hell you think is right without talking to other people. I think your current changes are stupid. People know what attacking is. People know what casting is. People know what healing is. People know what damage is. We don't need to link to every noun in the article. 20:34, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

its a ton of skills, going trough them, not hyperlinking everything, jsut bringing them out of stub status, theres more important stuff than hyperlinking the descriptions or not. Ollj
 * Damage types, including general damage and Heal, because heal is just negative damage, should be hyperlinked.
 * Skill types and atribute classes bound to them like "Necromancer Hex" should be hyperlinked.
 * 1...13 - hyperlinking all those, part of a bigger project. AND im including the tables in the skills.
 * hyperlinking the target foe Ally Other Ally creatures and AoE-range like area nearby adjanced touched...


 * Here is a guideline to linking from wikipedia Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) --Geeman 20:54, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ollj, these are your opinions, they are not facts. The majority on the wiki have been happy with the way skill articles are linked for a long time. Now you are acting against those wishes. Also, it would help if you could spell. There is a process for removing stub status, please see Peer review. It had already been agreed that Unyielding Aura, for example, was no longer a stub, and yet you have still taken it upon yourself to change the article anyway. I am really not very happy about the way you are behaving. 21:19, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

The current state of Hyperlinking
I really think we should start some kind of move to remove the excessive hyperlinking used in the skill pages. Ollj (and perhaps otehrs) have linked far too many words in some descriptions, such as "Nearby foes are struck for 26...85 damage. Knocked down foes are struck for 10...56 additional damage" taken from Aftershock. I know that "nearby" might vary from skill to skill, but do we need to explain this on a seperate page? Since it varies from skill to skill the actual range can be explained in the notes. Do we need to explain what a foe is? Do we need to explain what damage is? It's not even any particular type of damage. Perhaps knocked down deserves a link, but is it really necessary? It looks very unprofessional! 08:25, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)

Images
Could someone add instructions to this page on where/how they create the nice 128x128 pngs? I've tried to crop screen caps with GIMP of the skills window but the largest image I can find is smaller that 128x128 and scaling them makes them look, well, scaled. I'd be happy to contribute all of mine if it was clearer how to get that image. Thanks. MartinLightbringer(CS) 04:40, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)

There's a fansite kit up on guildwars.com that actually has all those images; the problem is it's not -all- the images, there's not even a complete list of skills I don't think. Just most skills, and most of those have the images. And I THINK Gravewit's uploaded all of those already (you can search for what images are uploaded by doing Upload file > list of uploaded files). So until they update it (or someone manages to hack the game files and extract) I think we'll live with scaled and be okay. Nunix 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Ah. I get it. Thanks. There's more there than what Gravewit's uploaded (The Warror Skills for example) but I see why they haven't been done. High PITA factor as what they distrubute is a word doc for each profession that has embedded images. I'll start working on the Warrior one since that's what I dl'd to take a look at and go from there. MartinLightbringer(CS) 05:04, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, that's the exactly, martin, I don't even -have- Office on my machine (I user Apple's wonderful OS X and BBedit for all my text-editing needs) so, if you've got the time, well... go ahead and upload them all : ) Gravewit 05:17, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Ok. I've got all 56 Warrior images converted to PNG and uploaded. Not all of them have their skill stubs created. I'll get to that later. I've got a decent process down to convert them fairly quickly. I'll get started on the Monk ones next and eventually get them all done. MartinLightbringer(CS) 01:44, 19 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I've uploaded all the monk and ele images. 02:07, 19 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * ah ok. :) Ranger it is! :) MartinLightbringer(CS) 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (EST)

What are we going to do about the images that weren't in the fan site pack? It'd be obvious which someone screenshotted from in game and which were from the pack, but I'm not sure what other choice we have. We'd need a standard for size and where to crop if we take screenshots, also. --Fyren 04:27, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah that's a problem. I'm hoping that maybe they'll release updated fan site packs but I'm not holding my breath. In the mean time, I'd suggest that the elite skills, etc use the version from the skill listing (as opposed to what is the character's active skills) to avoid the numbers on the image. Ideally the image from the 'skill unlocked' window that pops up would be best since it's larger still and pretty clear but short of digging through the installed/dl'd files that come with the game, I'm not sure how we'd get those. MartinLightbringer 05:03, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * It is possible to remove the numbers from the images. If you reconfigure your keys so that they dont use numbers the numbers on the icons dissapear. You can then edit your interface to get some big sized buttons and take a screenshot of that, cropping to 128x128px. Even then the image is blurred; it seems the images in the game are lower quality than the images in the fansite kit. 05:23, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Categories
Okay, my above section didn't get much input on the topics. So, I present, in the proper location for discussion, categories! Right now, we've got Category:Fire Damage and so on for things that deal that type of damage. Ollj suggested a while ago that we have Category:Causes Poison and so on. Besides conditions, we could have knockdown and exhaustion. Other categories that might be useful are removes enchantments, removes hexes, removes conditions, snares, buffs speed, buffs elusion (to cover block, evade, dodge without using those words), reduces damage, and buffs armor. I've always wanted to be able to crossreference some of these things, like "what are all the ways to cause ," and I'm sure others have wanted this as well.

Another suggestion I have is we add things to the category with the profession in the name, as in. This would help searches like I mentioned above, since you might only want to find all ways to do something only for the two professions for one of your characters.

So, what does everyone think? What other categories might there be of use? (The category suggestions above are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others.) I think this is all good, I'd be fine doing it all myself if no one opposes such changes. --Fyren 03:26, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Okay, then. I assume everyone's all for it!  I'll get right on it!  I also thought up the categories causes cantaloupe, eats babies, and buffs shepherds!  I'll get right on adding them unless someone speaks up.  --Fyren 04:01, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * lol, hey :) Well, I don't disagree with more categories necessarily, but the ones we have are a mess. I really hate the fact that Necromancer General/Monk General etc. exist for skills with no attribute. It's just not a very good name! And the fact that some categories use plural and some use singular still annoys me, even after the discussion about the difference between skills and the skill type "skill"... So yeah, I also don't think a category is necessary for "causes exhaustion", since only 1 skill does. 21:11, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I'd probably change the "general" ones into " Unlinked Skills" or just " Unlinked." My overall goal is to do a pass through all the skills to do lots of things at once.  I'd change them all to plural, except the "skill" thing, which I guess can use a little more discussion.  For exhaustion, I meant the ones that are self-imposed.  --Fyren 03:24, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

Here are the new categories I've come up with: These seem to cover various effects that aren't specific to just a few skills.
 * Causes [each condition, Exhaustion, Health/Energy Re/Degen]
 * Knocks Down
 * Removes [Conditions, Hexes, Enchantments]
 * Buffs [Speed, Armor, "Elusion" or whatever, Attack Speed] (maybe "improves" instead?)
 * Debuffs [same as above] (degrades? worsens?)
 * Interrupts
 * Drains Energy
 * Generates Energy
 * Requires Corpse (uses corpse?)
 * Heals
 * Increases Maximum Health
 * Questable
 * Not Questable

To note, here are the categories that we're using already:
 * Skills
 * Elite Skills
 * [Class] Skills
 * [Skill Type]s
 * [Attribute] or [Class] General
 * [Damage Type] Damage

Some issues with the existing categories:
 * Attributes and damage categories like "Air Magic" and "Fire Damage" don't fit the general pattern of categories being plural noun phrases or verb phrases, I suggest Air Magic Skills and Deals Fire Damage
 * "Mesmer General" is a poor name, I suggest "Mesmer Unlinked Skills"
 * Some aren't plural, like "Stance," I'll fix the singular categories
 * The skill type "skill," I don't know what to do about this (Ollj brought it up but no one commented)

The last point refers to the fact that we have a Category:Skills that contains all skills, but "skill" is also a type of skill. I don't know how to fix the name conflict. "Skill" and "Skill (Skill Type)" or "Skill (Type)" seems like a poor solution.

No one's commented besides Biro. I'm going to wait a couple days for discussion here, then lay out my proposal for AoE, targetting, and "method" of execution, and after that has been discussed (or hasn't) I'll go through all the skills myself to implement all this stuff. --Fyren 09:29, 19 Aug 2005 (EST)

You could get some "Requires [a condition]" pages although some of those would be short. For example Gash requires bleeding. "Causes Exhaustion" seems kind of silly - why would you want to look up those skills? The Exhausted Elementalist Comedy Build? Also, this is another place where those short skill description templates could be helpful.--Cloak of Letters 08:59, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I think "requires " would be too small. Glyph of Energy removes exhaustion from your next spell, so it might be nice to be able to list them.  It is pretty specific, so it's not a big deal if "causes exhaustion" is scrapped.  How would the short listings help?  --Fyren 09:25, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I'd rather have a list of skills on these pages instead of a list of skill names to open in new windows.--Cloak of Letters 10:19, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I guess we just disagree there. While I like the reference page, I don't like the "short" pages/templates.  Categories, though, just need a one-liner ("this category contains all the skills that cause bleeding") and  and such on the skill.  I'd rather do that than maintain a page.  --Fyren 10:31, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)

Unless someone disagrees soon, I'm going through the skills and adding the above categories, except maybe the exhaustion one. Then I'm going to write a Perl script that crossreferences them, and if that turns out well, I'll see about getting it hosted on this server. --Fyren 02:54, 12 Sep 2005 (EST)

After some thought, I have to disagree with adding these new categories. I think it would be better to just have those skill listings appear in the relevant article instead (i.e. poison-causing skills as a list in the poison article). It would provide more usefulness without the rather excessive category clutter. For example, I find the list of "Skills that cause fire damage" under Fire damage more useful (due to organization by profession) than Category:Fire Damage (which is also ambiguously named...why does Mantra of Flame not belong?). --64.186.172.227 04:20, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Some of the effects don't have articles. If we add links to the articles that do exist, we're doing work that the wiki can do for us.  About the "fire damage" category, I said it should be "deals fire damage" to fit in with our category naming scheme for everything.   For organizing things by profession, I wavered on it, but listing everything as  and so on would sort it by profession and then by skill name.  --Fyren 04:36, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I don't understand how the work would be substantially less in that case. Wouldn't it be "add  to a dozen articles" versus "add a dozen links to a corpse article"?  Actually, wouldn't the system of links in articles be less work just because a ton of those are done like that already (such all the conditions)?  --64.186.172.227 04:26, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * "Deals fire damage" is much better, but I still slightly wince at that name because, with respect to article namespace, that should technically include Fiery Dragon Sword. Maybe a better example would be to ask which among Apply Poison, Fevered Dreams, and Martyr would go in , and why?  They all can induce the poison condition indirectly, but it's not immediately clear which would belong.  Keeping the list in the poison article allows for the flexibility to handle this sort of ambiguity. --64.186.172.227 04:26, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * As far as the correct categorisation of articles goes I am for it. By this I mean that skills are organised by their attribute and profession. For everything else I would prefer lists. I realise that it's more hard work, but just because something can be grouped into a category doesn't mean it should. If a Beaver eats wood should "Beaver" be in the "eats wood" category? I realise that's a silly example, but I just want to explain my thinking. I am not entirely opposed to categories that group skills by certain properties, but I would prefer to see all articles in as few categories as possible, preferably one category. Sorry if I seem like I'm backtracking Fyren, I don't think I understood your intentions last time I posted. 06:28, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)

Regarding mesmer unlinked skills and the like, I suggest that those skills simply be the only ones directly under "Category:Mesmer Skills" (other mesmer skills will be members indirectly, through subcategories). For those skills, attributelessness will be implied by their appearance at that level instead of within the attribute subcategories. --67.169.184.133 00:01, 21 Sep 2005 (EST)

For a simple solution to the Skills vs Skill (Skill type) naming conflict, see my recent proposal in Talk:Skill (Skill type) --Rezyk 07:16, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)

Fyren, I can definitely see where you're going with these categories. They would add a certain database-like quality to this information, allowing for multiple views based on how you parse the categories. I have mixed feelings about how successful this might be and about how complicated it might be to get a large number of people to figure out what categories should be applied to which skills. I like that lists allow you to list things by profession and skill line when appropriate. Different lists need different levels of break down, and hand-coded pages allow for a lot of flexibility. For instance, I like what Karlos did to the list of sacrifice skills. If we could somehow preserve this level if organization (professions/skill lines) within the categories rather than just having alphabetical lists of skills that would be a start. Of course there are also skill lists that include additional information in the list (like the hex article) and that would be lost. My suggestion would be to leave all lists as they are for the time being. Start with a small subset of skills and categories and play around. Then everyone can take a look at the results and make some suggestions. I think the causes conditions categories might be a nice place to start sampling. --Squeg 04:29, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * Well, what happened with this is that no one seemed to care and the wiki has no "intelligent" way to crossreference. I started working on a script you could query using propositional logic and basically the categories I wanted (like "generates energy AND enchantment" or "generates adrenaline and not stance").  But, since I'm lazy and in general I don't have a use for it anymore (so much PvPing that I basically know what all the skills do) I ditched it.  --Fyren 08:08, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * thanks for the update, I'm moving this to archive so it doesn't confuse anyone later.