GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Old stuff is in the archive.
Less old stuff in /Archive2

image names

Okay, I'm interested in messing with some other templates using the skill images, but a problem we have right now is that in most cases, the skill name != image name. Most commonly, the image names are lacking spaces/underscores. This means a lot of stuff needs to be entered manually. Anyone have compelling argument for me to NOT go through and fix all these image names? --Nunix 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (and I'll be moving quite a lot of this stuff into an archive page here, but want to get this sorted first)

Apostrophes in the image names used to make annoying things happen. I don't know if it still occurs with the newer MediaWiki. --Fyren 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Did we ever get the "filename with an apostrophe bug" fixed? IIRC that was the main thing that stopped others from doing the same thing. Dammit Fyren, you beat me to it. --Rainith 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please DO rename them. And if the server somehow has an issue with file name "Foo Bar Qed.jpg" (assuming skill name = "Foo Bar Qed"), let's use the convention of renaming it to "Foo Bar Qed_.jpg". Thus it simply becomes {{PAGENAME}}_.jpeg, which still allows great flexibility for templates. That really would make me happy (-: -PanSola 00:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for naming images exactly like the article so that we can use {{PAGENAME}}.jpg/png (unless there is an apostroph in the name). That goes for ALL images, not just skill icons. --Tetris L 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the apostroph, I really don't think it was the cause of the problem. Even random images without apostroph in the name used to be not uploadable. The fact that some of them happen to contain apostroph is probably a coincedence. -PanSola 09:37, 11 February 2006 (CST)
Different problem. They would upload fine, but the appostrophe would be replaced with %/something or other. This then made the image show up fine in the articles that linked to it, but you couldn't get to the image's page itself, as it created a seperate directory/file. (Or somthing to that effect.) --Rainith 10:09, 11 February 2006 (CST)

Targets, AoEs, and Methods

This was originally brought up at Talk:Skill Template Guide#Targets, AOEs, and so on. The gist of it is I think it might be worthwhile to add three fields to the skill template: target, AoE, and method (of activation/execution). Here's the summary:

Target

What the skill can be used on. This is what the skill is "aimed" at. Choices are self, ally, other ally, pet, undead ally, enemy, and any. I think this covers everything, but I haven't scrutinized every skill (the actual list may even turn out to be smaller, I need to do more testing). "Undead ally" is the game's term for allied undead minions. Putrid explosion lets you target a friend or foe; it's the only skill I know of that can target "any."

self, ally, other ally, pet, undead ally, undead, foes undead, foe(s), creatures, corpse, all pets, dead ally pets --Ollj 20:44, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
"Foe" is enemy. I have no idea what you mean by "creatures." (If you mean Otyugh's, I suspect that targets yourself.) No corpse spell actually targets a corpse (if you use zealot's fire and cast, say, well of blood, it damages around you, not the corpse). I suspect all the non-attack pet skills target yourself, if the attacks target the pet, pet will be one choice. The minion spells all target yourself, except Verata's gaze, so you're right that there needs to be enemy undead. Thinking about it more, dead party member needs to be one, too. --Fyren 21:17, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)

AoE

What "area" the skill affects once it is activated. Choices are target, adjacent, nearby, area/location (the game's keywords for it), party, corpse, spirit. Again, I haven't scrutinized all the skills yet, but I think this covers them all. If the AoE is actually an area (as opposed to target, party, or corpse), it's centered on the skill's target.

+targets adjanced, +own adjanced, +2 more adjanced, +4 more adjanced, +2 nearby
I have no idea what this means. --Fyren 21:18, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)

Method

How the skill does its thing. Choices are touch, attack, magic projectile, and automatic. Scrutinized, everything, yadda yadda. Touch are the spells that require you to touch your target (be in melee range). Attacks are skills that, well, are attacks (they can be blocked, evaded, etc. as if they were a normal attack). Magic projectiles are spells that travel and then strike, so have a chance of being dodged as if they were arrows, but can't be blocked, evaded, etc. Automatic are everything else. Things that just happen. Automatic is probably by far the largest.

Comments? --Fyren 18:46, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)

+targets adjanced, +own adjanced, +2 more adjanced, +4 more adjanced, +2 nearby actally touch is just the skills range, there still is barely any research on skills ranges. --Ollj 20:50, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)

Agreed. Someohow I feel we had this discussion before. :) I think "Method" should probably be called "Application." i.e. how the skill is applied. And "Automatic" should be called something like instantanuous or something. --Karlos 20:52, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
All spell ranges are the same, except the one ice spell that notes otherwise. You could call touch just melee range, but there still needs to be a distinction, because "automatic" and "magic projectile" are 'normal' range. We might as well go with the in game term and its semantics. All attack skills seem to be melee range. --Fyren 21:22, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
Can you dodge/block touch spells like Shock? Also, I never saw the term "automatic damage" in the game. Where is that? For example, Chain Lightning is "automatic" but it doesn't say it's automatic. --Karlos 21:28, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
No, you can't dodge or block touch spells (I tried (but apparently failed) to make that clear by contrast with attacks in the first place). And I meant go with the in game term "touch," not automatic. (Though "magic projectile" is a game term, too.) --Fyren 21:34, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)

Elite Flaggin..

How about the small addition I made to the skill template in "Victory is Mine!"? I think it makes Elites stand out. I think the reason someone put Dakk in the aquisition is becasue they didn't notice it was elite. --Karlos 17:55, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

I don't have anything against making elite skills standing out more. But I don't like the template, it looks like patched in. I don't know where I've seen it, but on some talk page someone suggested a gulden border around the box. That would probably be a lot more work, but also look much nicer. Tetris L suggested something like this further up on this talk page, too, by the way. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 18:43, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
That just goes to show you how useful these talk pages are. :) Actually, in this case, the broken template helps because we can simply omit the elite line for none elites. Coding a gold bar (or border) if the skill is elite is, I think, near impossible in the limited world of templates. --Karlos 18:56, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
I had thought that the eliteness of a skill is mentioned in the text. 'This is an elite skill' does appear in the skill descriptions in-game, IIRC (I haven't played for a week or so, due to RL, *boo*). I think this would be a helpful addition, but if you're set on including the elite property in the template this would lead to a minor duplication of information. 148.177.129.213 19:41, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Yes, you're right. Most elite skills are marked like this, not all though. Most have also the addition "(Elite)" to their skill type in the box. I think that a little more color wouldn't hurt, though. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 19:52, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
OK, I'll make all the elite entries conform when I come across them, to have the 'This is an elite' in the skill description. Is that acceptable? 148.177.129.213 20:01, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Skill description must be the one in the game, verbatim. So, if the one in the game says something other than "this is an elite skill" then we should not put our own sentence. --Karlos 20:44, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Actually, only a small portion of elite skills mentiones the eliteness of the skill in the skill description. And like Karlos I think we shouldn't change the description from what it is in the game. Especially because I think mentioning it in the description isn't even prominent enough.
We desperately need a way to mark elite skills much more prominent than we currently do. I've been asking for this for quite a while. See GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills#Elite_Skills. I like what Karlos suggests. For sure it's better than what we currently have. I saw somebody else experimenting with a template for elite skills very simular to Karlos', but can't find it any more. I already liked that template back then. --Tetris L 20:52, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
I still haven't found the thing with the golden border, but I have found this. Almost like Karlos'. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 21:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

Biro made User:LordBiro/Template:Skill_elite_entry a long time ago and put it in GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Skills/Everything Example. --Fyren 21:11, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

Yes, that's the one I was talking about! And Eightyfour, the one you're talking about may be the one I suggested in this very talk? Scroll up a bit! That was just a quick suggestion, in lack of a better one. But the design is horrible and the code is cumbersome. I'd prefer Karlos' / Lord Biro's (which are essentially the same). --Tetris L 21:16, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Ok, Quickly!! Before we forget again, and this falls into oblivion again, only to be borught up by someone else 2 months later, Shall we decide on whether or not to use it and then assign it to poor Rainith to do the actual work? :) --Karlos 21:17, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
What I meant was something like this. It wouldn't be too difficult to implement. All that is necessary is a modified "Skill_begin" template. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 21:45, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
That looks very nice, too! I'd favour a combination of your design and Karlos'. Let's wait 'til tomorrow with the decision. Until then, we can all suggest fancy looks. :) --Tetris L 21:52, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
We do appear to be having the exact same discussion with the exact same suggestions, heh. We decided the gold border wasn't very visible unless you make it really, really thick. I'd go with Biro's. --Fyren 21:55, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Ha ha!! Try that link now! I just edited it and made the whole skill box golden! Amazing! Wonderful! I love it! Muaha ha ha.. If it does nothing else.. It will catch the user's eye! :) (On a serious note, I agree, the border is barely noticeable). --Karlos 22:04, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
"That" link? Which link? --Tetris L 22:11, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
The test link provided by 84.175: User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive/skilltest --Karlos 22:14, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
I think that looks great, stands out very well. LordKestrel 08:44, 27 October 2005 (EST)
Please do not urinate on the skill boxes even if you are now an admin. --Fyren 22:20, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
I look at the color and think of GOLD, you think of urine! Who has issues? :) --Karlos 18:20, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)

12 days later and no obvious signs of a final resolution, so i'm piping in: I think either the way the example skill is written or Karlos' new "urine-colored" box would be fine. But why not just add "This is an Elite skill above the description section for each elite skill? That way you don't have to argue about whether or not to change the game text, and you still get the information. Just a thought. --Squeg 04:45, 19 October 2005 (EST)

I prefer the way the example is, with both the bullet list and gold stripe in the skill box. (Of course, I'm biased since I came up with the bullet list way back when I made the example.) --Fyren 16:32, 27 October 2005 (EST)
I like it too. --Squeg 03:42, 28 October 2005 (EST)

I like Karlos's template, thtas exactly what I wanted ^^ (I fixed it btw, you put 2 style attributes in) Skuld 04:29, 28 October 2005 (EST)

I prefer the gold stripe like in the example too. I think I'd go with Karlos' if the golden-ness was limited to the image cell or something like that. (Example: User:Rezyk/SkillExampleC) As it is now, it seems like the eliteness just completely dominates/overshadows every other aspect of the skill. --Rezyk 18:55, 28 October 2005 (EST)

I don't care which as long as we pick one and move on. Are we voting between template or are we going with the one in the Style & Formatting? --Karlos 20:54, 28 October 2005 (EST)

Resurrecting the "Elite Flagging" debate

Ok, Quickly!! Before we forget again, and this falls into oblivion again, only to be borught up by someone else 2 months later, Shall we decide on whether or not to use it and then assign it to poor Rainith to do the actual work? :) --Karlos 21:17, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

Here are some of my skill boxes: User:PanSola/Skill box test

For the icon for Echo, I used the one from the new Anet fansit kit (only 3kb, and has a higher quality look than the current 16kb png ones we use for elites), which does not have golden border around the icon.

The actual "gold" color and the border styles are negeociable.

  • Skill box 3 is most similar to User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive/skilltest. The elite color dominates the entire skill box.
  • Skill box 4 is actually not about elite flagging, but about the re-structure of the box itself. Ignore for now.
  • Skill box 5 is most similar to User:Rezyk/SkillExampleC. The elite color only shades the cell.
  • Skill box 6 only puts the golden border AROUND the skill icon, which might not be prominent enough, but looks more eloquent (perhaps make the color darker or border thicker?).

All of these skill boxes essentially use the same syntax (I need a wrapper table around 3 and 4 to make the float right). The difference between whether the golden color (be it the entire box or just the cell) simply depends on if we filled the {{{1}}} variable with the word "Elite".

{{User:PanSola/Skill box top 6| 
profession = Mesmer| 
attribute = Unlinked| 
type = Enchantment Spell | 
icon=[[Image:Mesmer-icon.png]] | 
image=[[Image:Echo.jpg]] |Elite}}
    {{Skill box detail | stat = Energy | value = 5 }}
    {{Skill box detail | stat = Activation | value = 1 }}
    {{Skill box detail | stat = Recharge | value = 30 }}
{{Skill box bottom}}

{{User:PanSola/Skill box top 6| 
profession = Warrior | 
attribute = Tactics | 
type = Stance | 
icon=[[Image:Warrior-icon.png]] | 
image = [[Image:ShieldStance.png]]|}}
    {{Skill box detail | stat = Energy | value = 5 }}
    {{Skill box detail | stat = Recharge | value = 60 }}
{{Skill box bottom}}

For Skill type, I use the same hack as the border coloring, so the "Elite" would only appear on a new line for elite skills, and for non-elite skills the newline effect is hardly visible.


Other choices are:

What do ppl think? -PanSola 01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Six looks good, as does four. I like the restructuring of four, making the box longer and thinner. On six, maybe use a darker and thinner border? I think the best option would be screen caps from in-game, however, with the 'natural' border. Shandy 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I like 5 and "Everything Example". I do not like options where the elite color floods the whole box, because I feel like it's kind of overbearing. I think 6 is good, too, but that specific color doesn't work as well when it's in a tiny border (I'd lighten and fade it some to get a more washed-out, less marigold-y gold). 130.58 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ADDED: Skill box 7. It uses a different border style than 6, and gets a black background to make the gold stand out more. Note that the same color is used in 6 and 7, but because of hte different border styling they appear differently. -PanSola 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Skills Quick References

I am very unhappy with our current "<Profession> Skills Quick References" tables, for example Warrior Skills Quick Reference. These are among the most popular pages on GuildWiki, but they are flawed, for a number of reasons:

  1. The info is redundant with the individual skill articles, and if ANet changes anything about a skill, we gotta fix it in two places.
  2. The description isn't wikified.
  3. Some important information is missing, foremost the skill type.

I would love if we could come up with a solution that allows us to link the individual skill articles with the overview list. One possible solution is to change the skill box template so that it is in landscape format (100% page width) and that it includes the skill description. Then we could use the noinclude/includeonly tags to build the Quick References out of all the individual skill articles. This will be a helluvalot of work, but I think it is worth it. We might start with the Assassin and Ritualist skills, because those are still in Draft state anyway. I'll go ahead and suggest a landscape skill box incl. the description. --Tetris L 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the quickest solution would be to put everything else, except the skill description, in noinclude tags. However if the energy or recharge changes we still have the same fundamental problem. I think making the box landscape defeats having a "box". What we get is just a none-floating full-width table. Which is fine, I'm not saying I'm against it. Just pointing out it loses the box-ness.
So, the things that are NOT included in the quick reference would be (backsolving):
1. Progression
2. Aquisition
3. Progression Table
So we'll just put everything after the first section into ? Do we want the icon to be included in the quick reference or not? -PanSola 04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh.. Before you put a lot of work into this, I suggest taking a look at the source code of User:Rezyk/test3 and Trap. This is a project that Cloak of Letters and I were working on until Cloak got bored and I ended up on hiatus. The mechanism used is also designed to allow for general extensions (demonstrated in Paladin (build)#Skills and Attributes, Hex#Related Skills, and User:Rezyk/test), such as what you might want to add for a skill box. --Rezyk 06:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed all those includeonly and noincludes in the skill pages. The annoying thing with that is you got duplicate info contained in the SAME page. Essentually its dumping two articles into the same page, showing the top only when viewed directly, and showing the bottom only when included. Personally I'd like to see that content are actually shared between the viewed page and the included page, using includonly and noinclude to manipulate unwanted sections or alternate formatting. -PanSola 06:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I always hated that redundancy too. But as far as I can tell, it's pretty easy to fix that and most everything else within Tetris' new proposal. Just do this:
  • Replace the skill Description section with the stuff from the includeonly section. Take off the includeonly tags (but keep everything else noinclude). Add wiki codes for table-start and table-end around it, in the noinclude sections.
  • Wikify the description text.
  • Figure out how we want to place the info not covered by it (basically just the image, profession, and attribute)
--Rezyk 07:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is what I got:

If I give them borders then the empty fields for recharge/activation/misc will look ugly. If there is a way to put border around the entire row but not columns within the row, please let me know. -PanSola 09:41, 11 February 2006 (CST)

That's one of the main reasons I suggested looking at this mechanism... We spent quite some effort and solved that problem there. --Rezyk 22:19, 11 February 2006 (CST)

Skill icons: screen cap or fansite kit?

Over at the Task list the opinions has been to use the one from the fansite kit, but the issue that there is no golden border for the elite skills was not brought up. I still vote fansite kit though. -PanSola 06:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should go with the fansite kit images. The golden border shouldn't be that important if the skill article itself says that they are an elite skill. --Rainith 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)