Talk:Skill

Skill,Skills and Skill details
This should not have been moved! Skill details was only to describe the details featured in the Skill Boxes on skill articles. I'm going to return Skill details to it's former state. 10:32, 26 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * That's also why the images were in the headings, so it's clear what part of the box is being referred to. Other than that though, the additional information is useful. 10:38, 26 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I think this should be moved to Skill because of singular wikifiing.


 * Agreed. Articles should be singular whenever possible.  Any dissent?  &mdash;Tanaric 19:59, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I think this should either be merged with, or split off, Skill Details. i am more for Split because Skill(s) has enough content without "skill details" in it. Please Merge the "skill details" of "skill(s)" with "Skill Details"


 * Didn't you make the change in the first place Ollj?!?! ARGH!!!!! 21:42, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * OK, I see it was Roland of Gilead, well anyway, yes I agree with you here Ollj. 21:43, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * That was really funny. I can't stop laughing! &mdash;Tanaric 22:13, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Lol, I feel quite stupid after that :P 22:38, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Cast and activate
I already changed Activation Times to Casting Times because of this []. Then I saw LordBiro saying that Activation Time is agreed word. I think that now on we should use Casting Time because it seems to be the offical word. Tell me what do you think. --Geeman 00:12, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

Now you need to stop linking to 'cast'. I think it is bad for these reasons: 1) There is no article called cast 2) Most of those pages talk about casting time instead of casting in general 3) the correct wording is 'to cast' 4) the game and most pages on this site use activation time --Geeman 22:46, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * There is no article called "activation time" (there wasnt, bet you will make one now) and those pages talk about casting time also. so "1" and "2" are nullified
 * All ingame skill descriptions use "time to cast" or "cast slower" (without "to"), and im not starting a page that includes prefixes like "to" ir "the" if they are no nouns! so "3" and "4" are nullified
 * "guild Wars" "Casting time" wins google fights against "Guild Wars" "activation time". "4" nullified again by all the guild wrs comunity
 * Its called "fast casting and not fast activating. owned!

Okay, but atleast use Casting instead of cast. --Geeman 23:21, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

[...merged...]

I dont want to use Casting, because its not any better for the noun-argument, and its worse because its longer for the wikifiing-agrument. And the -ing suffix is only a gennus, it changes relative to time, and "casting" is used in correct gennus in the skill descriptions above (but only used like 3 times)


 * Well, think about it this way: What do you think that should be in article 'cast'? I can't think of anything that is not explained in Skills. --Geeman 23:47, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I can, BTW this will be my last argument to you.
 * Could you share it with the rest of us? --Geeman 23:56, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Google count doesn't matter really, if you use proper english you only cast spells. Activation time is the term chosen to use, if you think this is wrong discuss it on the style and formatting pages. 00:07, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

Arguing

 * moved from User:Olljs User page by copy and paste, so "You" means User:Ollj

Now you need to stop linking to 'cast'. I think it is bad for these reasons: 1) There is no article called cast 2) Most of those pages talk about casting time instead of casting in general 3) the correct wording is 'to cast' 4) the game and most pages on this site use activation time --Geeman 22:46, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * There is no article called "activation time" (there wasnt, bet you will make one now) and those pages talk about casting time also. so "1" and "2" are nullified
 * All ingame skill descriptions use "time to cast" or "cast slower" (without "to"), and im not starting a page that includes prefixes like "to" ir "the" if they are no nouns! so "3" and "4" are nullified
 * "guild Wars" "Casting time" wins google fights against "Guild Wars" "activation time". "4" nullified again by all the guild wrs comunity
 * Its called "fast casting and not fast activating. owned!

Okay, but atleast use Casting instead of cast. --Geeman 23:21, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

Lets take a look at the skills, because the simple reasins i used cast are Guilt Shame Hex Breaker Backfire Powerspike Power Block Mantra of Recorery Arcane Continuum Interpitude Mantra of Persistence Channeling Power Drain Arcane Echo Divine Boon Peache and Harmony Blessed Aura Divine Spirit Virgurous Spirit Holy Veil Succor Mark of Subvertion Soul Leech Soul Barbs Beastial Pounche Concussion Shot Nsatures Renewal Quickening Zephyr Choking Gas Skull Crack... Only Rust uses the term "activate".

I dont want to use Casting, because its not any better for the noun-argument, and its worse because its longer for the wikifiing-agrument. And the -ing suffix is only a gennus, it changes relative to time, and "casting" is used in correct gennus in the skill descriptions above (but only used like 3 times)


 * Well, think about it this way: What do you think that should be in article 'cast'? I can't think of anything that is not explained in Skills. --Geeman 23:47, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I can, BTW this will be my last argument to you.
 * Could you share it with the rest of us? --Geeman 23:56, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Google count doesn't matter really, if you use proper english you only cast spells. Activation time is the term chosen to use, if you think this is wrong discuss it on the style and formatting pages. 00:07, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * merged the "cast" discussion to here. --Ollj

results of arguing
I think arguing came to the result that spells,hexes,shouts ... get "cast" while signets Glyphs skills... get activated, no matter how much time it takes. What about sttances and attacks, are they none of both?

So my point is that skills is global for spells ... that you cast and signets ... that you activate and attacs that you attack and Hexes that you hex. But you can can not mix those verbs into Skills because some hexing affects attacking and attacking affects activatings and activatings affect castings and castings affect hexing ...

It seems theres no simple solution.

But the whole "cast to wanted pages, but change it to activate" just came by 15 spells that affect casting of other spells and hex Spells!


 * I say leave everything as "activation time" as it was originally. Ollj is right in that "casting" stances and attacks makes no sense, but I don't think it's worth having some say "casting time" and other say "activation time."  --Fyren 01:42, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

defending Elite as Skill type
Elite is a skill sub-type like any other, because there are spells that affect only them, like with many other skill types; and Elite is part of each Elite Skill's type label. There is no reason to not put the Elite property into the Type category.

edit: look at the official page for definite proof: http://www.guildwars.com/manual/a-heros-life/skills/skill-types.html --Roland


 * I don't know where the original discussion was, but I mentioned there I like how we do it now as "Enchantment Spell (Elite)," though I could go for "Elite Enchantment Spell" as the game says. --Fyren 06:09, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I said it before, and it fits here, too: If there is an official wording, we should use it instead of agreeing on our own convention, unless it made a lot more sense than the official one. What I like about "Elite Enchantment Spell" instead of "Enchantment Spell (Elite)" is the simple building block style of putting together the type label. Elite is, like the online manual says, a skill type as any other, so there is no reason to treat it special.


 * Elite is a priest type. (and yes, i just made this up, i agree, that elite is just a second "type" like Hex and it should be shown like in the example below)
 * For me "type" of a skill means enchantment hex spell skill ... and NOT if its an elite (or "skill type" that is also an elite) or not! Actually you could put elite into a "Priest type" that tells you at what Priest you can unlock that skill, because all elites are to unlock at the same "pvp priest". Other "priest type"s woud just be the names of the cities ,with the priest that unlocks that skill, in it.
 * " elite Enchantment spell" is pretty much the same as "Elite Enchantment spell", so much to the oficial wording. we already have the left one, so why bother for the right one?
 * "enchantment" instead of "enchantment spell" and the same for "Hex Spell"->"Hex" ... is already discussed [|Here under "7)"].
 * " elite Enchantment spell" is pretty much the same as "Elite Enchantment spell", so much to the oficial wording. we already have the left one, so why bother for the right one?
 * "enchantment" instead of "enchantment spell" and the same for "Hex Spell"->"Hex" ... is already discussed [|Here under "7)"].
 * "enchantment" instead of "enchantment spell" and the same for "Hex Spell"->"Hex" ... is already discussed [|Here under "7)"].


 * The bigger picture is that Elite IS a skill attribute. For example, you cannot equip two elites at the same time. There are Mesmer skills that steal or disable the opponent's Elite skill. So, elite is an attribute of the skill. I suggest that we modify the skill template itself with a field of "Elite: Yes/No" and only show the value if the skill's elite attribute is yes. Kinda like this:

let me "fix" your example, put it in a table and ask: Do you want to go Here?


 * Thanx, Ollj. :) Two fields named Type will confuse users, we need to think of something else. --Karlos 18:42, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

i can accept "elite" as a skill attribute, but no, it's not a skill type. yes, there is such a thing as an "elite enchantment" skill type, or "elite spell" type, but not "elite" by itself. what i can suggest is create a subtitle for elite skills, with "ELITE" in capital letters or something, you know, something obvious. something like this one, maybe?

{|



{| style="margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em; border-collapse:collapse; clear:right;" border="1" cellpadding="0" ! style="background: lightgreen;" | Unyielding Aura ! style="background: gold; padding: 0px;" | ELITE ! style="background: lightgreen;" | Skill details {| style="margin:0 auto; text-align:left; background:none;" cellpadding="2"
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * style="text-align:center; padding: 1px;" | [[Image:Unyieldingaura.png]]
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"


 * }
 * }




 * current
 * variation #1
 * variation #2
 * }
 * }

as you can see, i'm not that handy with tabling using wiki codes, the example is a mess. Nuble 02:10, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I like this besides the all caps, heh. --Fyren 04:04, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * maybe the golden plate goes on top... Nuble 04:41, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * golden border!!!

{|

{| style="margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em; border-collapse:collapse; border-style: ridge; border-width: 5px; border-color:gold; clear:right;" border="1" cellpadding="0"

! style="background: lightgreen;" | Unyielding Aura
 * - style="text-align:center;"

! style="background: lightgreen;" | Skill details {| style="margin:0 auto; text-align:left; background:none;" cellpadding="2"
 * style="text-align:center; padding: 1px;" | [[Image:Unyieldingaura.png]]
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"


 * }
 * }



{| style="margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em; border-collapse:collapse; border-style: solid; border-width: 3px; border-color:gold; clear:right;" border="1" cellpadding="0" ! style="background: gold; padding: 0px;" | Elite ! style="background: lightgreen;" | Unyielding Aura
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"

! style="background: lightgreen;" | Skill details {| style="margin:0 auto; text-align:left; background:none;" cellpadding="2"
 * style="text-align:center; padding: 1px;" | [[Image:Unyieldingaura.png]]
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * - style="text-align:center;"


 * }
 * }


 * variation #3
 * variation #4
 * variation #5
 * }
 * }


 * a bit thicker, maybe? Nuble 17:44, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)

defending Elite as Skill type (part 2)

 * yes, there is such a thing as an "elite enchantment" skill type, or "elite spell" type, but not "elite" by itself.
 * No. There is "Elite" by itself. As you know, every Skill is of the type "Skill" by default, thus if a Skill were only "Elite", it would be an "Elite Skill". Currently there are no "Elite Skills" to confirm this theory, but for indirect proof, note how Arcane Mimicry and Signet of Humility affect "Elite Skills". Thus, "Elite Skills" which are only Elite, are possible. The "Skill" in "Elite Skill" doesn't matter, because every Skill is of type Skill. This is another reason why the guildwiki should treat "Elite" like any other skill type.


 * Make a special template with gold border or something for elite skills, I like that too, but don't logically single out a skill property that can be treated as an addition to an existing property (i.e. treat Elite as a regular skill type instead of as a qualitative new property). Splitting up things that belong together is a quite annoying, recurring mistake that I've noticed on this wiki several times already. This is not some unification fetish of mine showing, but simply the attempt to keep the keyword organization logically coherent and synced with the game and official wordings. Roland of Gilead 10:24, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * For the sake of honesty: I am willing to admit that "Elite" is unlike every other skill type in some ways. For example, as Nuble pointed out in the comment I quoted above, "Elite" as a type can not stand alone, unlike any other skill type; this also implies it is the only type label for which the type label "Skill" is not dropped, in case of "Elite Skill". Also, except for the type Skill, it is the only type that combines with any other skill type. These two properties do distinguish it from all other skill types.


 * However, this does not justify making "Elite" a different property than skill type, because this distinction is quantitative, not qualitative. For example, "Enchantment" and "Hex" can be seen as the same kind of type prefix that is "Elite", only that the two are only valid as prefix for the "Spell" type, while "Elite" is valid for every basic or compound type. As the online manual states, there are only 10 basic skill types. These are not designated individually, but can be easily deducted because they are "non-divisible", i.e. not a compund of a prefix and another type. In this respect, the Types Adrenal, Enchantment, Hex, Bow, Axe, Hammer, Sword, and Elite are the prefixes for the basic skill types Skill, Spell, Attack, Shout, Signet, Stance, Preparation, Glyph, Trap, and Nature Ritual. The "Adrenal" prefix does not occur in-game, so we can just blame it on the manual and ignore "Adrenal".


 * If nobody disagrees, I will clarify all this in the article itself. Roland of Gilead 12:33, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * i thought "Skill types" were supposed to differentiate how a skill is used, how it functions, under what condition, its effects and whatnot? in that sense, an "elite enchantment spell" works in no way different than an "enchantment spell"; it is a spell that creates a buff for allies. likewise, an "elite hex spell" would function exactly the same as a "hex spell"; it incurs status ailment(s) on foes and/or self. the only difference "elite" does is the skill bar restriction of only one elite. that, and the availability of the skill. Nuble 01:55, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * As far as I understand, you argue like this:
 * - You assume statement A, "If two skills have the same type, then they behave very similarly".
 * - You invert A and thus produce the supposedly equivalent statement B, "If two Skills have different Skill types, then they must behave differently".
 * - You use statement B to prove by contradiction that "Elite" is not a Skill type, because if it were, it would violate statement B and thus A.
 * Short answer: concluding B is wrong because, logically, B is not equivalent to A. The correct equivalent to A would be "If two skills do not behave very similarly, they must have different types", which is something else entirely than statement B, your conclusion.


 * Long answer: assumption A, and thus B, is false not only for logical reasons, but also for simple observation:
 * A: As far as game mechanics are concerned, there is no reason why for example Hex Spells should not cause instant effects or effects on allies, although Hexes officially only deal duration-based effects on foes. In fact, for example Ice Spikes and every health-sacrificing Necro Hex contradicts this official "definition". This invalidates A.
 * B: If applied rigidly, why does Conjure Flame, then, behave exactly like a Preparation? It has everything a Preparation has (only 1 allowed at any time, affects only attacks, has duration), although they are of different types. On the other hand, why are Preparations not simply special Enchantments with Preparation properties? Apply Poison could easily be made into an Enchantment, since it behaves just like one. The reason, of course, is that Rangers just don't have Enchantments, and Elementalists just don't have Preparations, even if they could, because that would contradict each of those classes' respective "philosophy". You see, that's no hard-wired reason, but one of organization coherence.
 * Same for Shouts. Why aren't they just Skills with zero Casting time and a certain Area of Effect? Or, for that matter, why aren't they Spells? Why are there Spells anyway, since they are not fundamentally different from Skills? A simple matter of design and coherence. There goes B.


 * Maybe now you see, Skill type does not necessarily determine a Skill's usage or effects, and from Skill effects alone one can not always infer the Skill type.


 * Thus the bottom line: Elite is indeed a valid Skill Type, because it subjects its respective Skills to certain special rules (only 1 equippable), effects (Arcane Mimicry, Signet of Humility), and it groups them together into the "Elite Skills" category to make clear they are more powerful than non-Elites. Roland of Gilead 00:05, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * wow, didn't think it was possible to write an essay on that. i've seen several other people who can pull a simple argument to such extent like you did. just wondering, are you obsessive compulsive?
 * anyway, the only reason why you take Elite as skill type instead of "Elite Enchantment", "Elite Hex", "Elite Attack", etc(as seen within the game itself) in the first place, is because the official online manual lists it as a skill type, along with "Adrenal"(now hey, where did THAT one disappear to?). you obviously misinterpret most of what i said, so i'll just accept that i'm not a very good debater, and forget about writing my rebuttal essay here; do with the category what you think is best. isn't that much a big deal to begin with. Nuble 02:03, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)

The skill Matrix
This is a huge project, but its REALLY interestring if you search for an answere for the question "how to counter that?".

The skill matrix is a 456*456 spaces table that shows all relations betwen any of 2 skills.


 * Lets link to 103.512 =((456*456)/2-456) more articles aranged in an 456*456 table . :)
 * Each link goes to Enfeeble-Succor Enfeeble-Backfire Enfeeble-Gale ... so each link compares 2 skills to each other (that explains the high number and equitation above because its 456 skills in the game) (we either call it Enfeeble-Succor OR Succor-Enfeeble, lets take the alphabetic order to sort that, or we just use index numbers "compareskills014592") (we do not compare a skill with itself, that link just goes to the skill article).
 * the wikify-links name could be ">" "=" "<" to show wich is superior, or a number ranged from 1 to 9 that means the same (5 is "=").
 * Each linked article leaves space for discussion about what skill is superior to what skill, and how they interact, like in a "supporting each other" or "excluding each other" way. ==foe relation== AND ==party relation== should do.
 * I do 6 Tables in 6 table articles to split the big 456*456 table into one for each class: One row for each of the classes skill and one line for sall 456 skills. that just sort the links to each of the 103.512 articles. (an all in one table would just be too wide). OR I do 6*6 tables, one row for each classes skill and one line for each classes skill.
 * each of the 456 skill-articles get a link to their table (and not 455 links to all other skills), than youre just 1-2 klick(s) away from seeing how any skill interacts with any other skill.

If you can make such a thing, than only here because this is just too much data to enter for a single person. The tables including all the links can be done rather quick.

suggested by:


 * Table would be mostly blank, as most skills have no valid relationship with eachother. Not useful&mdash;any specific counters can be discussed on individual skill pages.  &mdash;Tanaric 19:57, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * We know you like creating articles, even if mostly for their own sake. I agree with Tanaric that this kind of info is better kept on each individual Skill article, because, as Tanaric wrote, there aren't that many interacting skill combinations, when compared to this huge number of possible combinations.