GW-Karlos@legacy41688711 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Mendel17257@legacy41699584 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[/Archive]] |
||
| − | I would like to suggest that the skill type "skill" is really just a skill type that every single skill has, but is displayed in-game only when there is no other subtype to use. It makes a lot more sense than the interpretation currently being given (that only skills that start with "Skill." in their description are of this type). |
||
| + | I think this should only be a forwarding thing, because the info given is also given in [[skill type]]...--[[User:Krushak|Krushak]] 07:32, 26 January 2007 (CST) |
||
| − | The argument I can see for the current interpretation is to only go by what is explicitly stated in the descriptions/categorizations in-game. The argument for my proposed interpretation is that you don't have to confusingly make 2 separate definitions for the same terms. |
||
| + | : I agree. The list isn't really relevant or up to date, it would be better just to redirect it to the other page, which is much more useful. <span style="white-space: nowrap">— '''[[User:Biscuits|Biscuits]]''' ([[User_talk:Biscuits|talk]] [[Image:Biscuit.png]] [[Special:Contributions/Biscuits|contribs]])</span> 09:54, 25 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | ::The articles aren't really supposed to have the same content. This is about "skill" as a skill type, the other is about skill types. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 14:19, 25 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | :::Oh, that wasn't very obvious. But it makes sense. It would be cool to clarify and improve this article then. I'm kind of busy atm though. <span style="white-space: nowrap">— '''[[User:Biscuits|Biscuits]]''' ([[User_talk:Biscuits|talk]] [[Image:Biscuit.png]] [[Special:Contributions/Biscuits|contribs]])</span> 14:41, 25 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | ::::I added a little and also went over [[skill type]]. I don't think the list of "things which interact with skills" is useful in the least. I highly doubt anyone will look for such a list rather than a more specific QR like the interruption QR. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 17:05, 25 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | == Excised line == |
||
| − | The same issue exists for the skill type "melee attack". Is it a supertype of "sword attack" or completely disjoint from it? How can you tell if a [[Magnetic Aura|magnetic aura]] will block a [[Savage Slash|savage slash]]? |
||
| + | :''Basic skills with no subtype are difficult to counter. Few skills can counter them, and no skills can prematurely end them.'' |
||
| + | That's ''really'' vague (and awkward). Not all of them have durations or lasting effects. Those with activations can be interrupted by many things. I'm not really sure what Gordon meant to point out. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 06:05, 4 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | :Agreed, I'll try to clean it up. -- [[user:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 19:56, 6 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | ::I decided to just add a related skills section. -- [[user:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 20:46, 6 February 2007 (CST) |
||
| + | == confused == |
||
| − | --[[User:Rezyk|Rezyk]] 07:05, 22 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | So, this isn't immediately clear- a skill is anything? Is something that says 'spell' also a skill? Generally we call anything that goes on a skill bar a skill, but as far as things like Song of Power for example- does the description have to say 'skill' for it to be a skill, or are spells or enchantments (etc) also considered skills? I read the previous talk and it still isn't very clear.--[[User:Jasminethetender|Jasminethetender]] 11:53, 23 March 2007 (CDT) |
||
| − | :I agree with Rezyk; The current article interprets skills in a convoluted fashion that leaves a fair amount of ambiguity about what skills really are. For example, skill interrupts can also interrupt glyph castings; That implies that Glyphs are skills as well, yet, they are specifically labeled as "glyphs." I'm more inclined to buy into the explanation that anything that fits on your skill bar is a Skill, and that there are subsets of skills (e.g. spells, signets, glyphs). --[[User:Razorfish|Razorfish]] 07:40, 22 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | : Yes, every single icon that goes in your skill bar is a 'Skill'. There is a hierarchy of types and that is at the top. Skills are given the most accurate description for their place in the hierarchy, but if it is right at the top then it will '''only''' have type Skill. See [[Skill_type]] for the hierarchy. Sof or example [[Agonizing_Chop]] is an [[Axe Attack]], but it is also a [[Melee Attack]], [[Attack]], and [[Skill]], even though it doesn't say any of those in the description. On the other hand, something like [[Awe]] is '''just''' a skill, and nothing else. <span style="white-space: nowrap">— '''[[User:Biscuits|Biscuits]]''' ([[User_talk:Biscuits|talk]] [[Image:Biscuit.png]] [[Special:Contributions/Biscuits|contribs]])</span> 14:26, 23 March 2007 (CDT) |
||
| − | ::I think we should rename this to "General Skill" or something. Because all skills are skills. :) These ones are basically, skills and nothing more than skills. Also, the article is written from the perspective of interruption almost entirely. --[[User:Karlos|Karlos]] 13:49, 22 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | == Visions of Regret == |
||
| − | :::While this article is very... Olljed... I don't really think it's misnamed. We have two articles, [[skill]] and this one. The former is about skills in general and this one is about skills as a specific type in contrast to [[spell]], [[Enchantment Spell]] (stupid capitalization), and so on. The best way to disambiguate things that should have the same name is the parenthetical note rather than mess with the main article title. I can guess what an article named "skill (skill type)" or "skill (type)" is about, but I'd have no clue about "general skill." Maybe we don't even need this article if the only thing someone can come up with for content is about "skill" as a type in respect to what that means for interruption. In that case, it can just be discussed in [[interrupt]]. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 07:33, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | Due to the new update, Visions of Regret now affects all "skills", and should be added to the list. I lack the ability to do it but I'm sure someone with more skill can do it. (i.e the people notified about my edit just now) =) [[User:Aura of Holy Might|Aura of Holy Might]] [[Image:Aurasigholymight.jpg|19px]] 07:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::Are we following this categorization: [[Skill#Skill Type]]?? If a skill is a hammer attack it should be categorized ONLY as a hammer attack. Then Hammer attack is a sub of Melee attack and Melee attack is a sub of attack which is a sub of skill. With a proper set of categories and defnition articles, we can then link to those articles (whic point to their categories) and it won't seem as random as it is now. |
||
| + | :Hey, there is a first time for everything, if it doesn't work that well, you can always ask, as long as you try.. Anyway, you are right, visions of regret is added..-- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- [[User_talk:Merty|( talk )]] 07:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::Look at [[Heavy Blow]].. It's a shambles! It's a skill AND a hammaer attack AND a warrior skill AND a hammer mastery skill even though ALL of that IS included in calling it a "Hammer Attack" --[[User:Karlos|Karlos]] 15:25, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | == Untyped skills == |
||
| − | :::::Everything is currently categorized like that. I brought this issue up in [[Category talk:Categories#General Categorization]] to little discussion (Talrath disagreeing, Biro seeming to agree). Specifically for skills, category "skills" is the root of the first tree I mention there (which EVERY skill is currently a child of). Category "skill" is currently in the second tree as a child of the root and contains all skills of type skill. The name is wrong since it's not plural, but it would logically have the same name as this article. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 16:33, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | This page suggests that [[:Category:untyped skills]] should not exist, yet it does. What gives? --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 10:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::::No, skills that are just "skills" will be categorized as "skills" everything else will be in a higher sub-category than that. For example "Meteor Shower" will be a "spell." And then in the definition articles, we can perhaps show the hierarchy so users understand what "labels" apply to a specific skill type. i.e. in "Axe Attack" we would point out that: |
||
| − | ::::::Skill->Attack->Melee Attack->Axe Attack |
||
| − | ::::::And that skills/effects that affect any of the above would affect Axe Attacks. |
||
| − | ::::::Shall I set out and implement this? --[[User:Karlos|Karlos]] 16:51, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | : Those skills do not have any type specified in-game, not even ''Skill''. However, they will never appear "in your skill bar" as this page defines a ''Skill'' (they're all monster-only skills). —[[User:Dr_ishmael|Dr Ishmael]] [[File:Diablo_the_chicken.gif|link=User_talk:Dr_ishmael]] 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::::::I dunno if you took a look at the talk page link I mentioned, but I envisioned two separate trees. "Skills" is the root of the first one, "skill (skill type)" would be a child of the root of the other. --[[User:Fyren|Fyren]] 17:03, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
| + | ::It looks like those skills can not be stolen by "thievery" skills or similar, correct? --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::::::::I saw that structure (and I storngly support it by the way), I was trying to say that (in that structure for example) a skill like [[Healing Spring]] (which I believe is just a skill with no sub type) would be an article in "Basic Skills" (which you call "Skill Type") right away. I would not put: |
||
| − | ::::::::SkillType->Skill->Helaing Spring. |
||
| − | ::::::::I would put: |
||
| − | ::::::::Basic Skills (or Skills or General Skills) ->Healing Spring. --[[User:Karlos|Karlos]] 17:40, 23 Sep 2005 (EST) |
||
Latest revision as of 15:01, 9 April 2011
I think this should only be a forwarding thing, because the info given is also given in skill type...--Krushak 07:32, 26 January 2007 (CST)
- I agree. The list isn't really relevant or up to date, it would be better just to redirect it to the other page, which is much more useful. — Biscuits (talk
contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- The articles aren't really supposed to have the same content. This is about "skill" as a skill type, the other is about skill types. --Fyren 14:19, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- Oh, that wasn't very obvious. But it makes sense. It would be cool to clarify and improve this article then. I'm kind of busy atm though. — Biscuits (talk contribs) 14:41, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- I added a little and also went over skill type. I don't think the list of "things which interact with skills" is useful in the least. I highly doubt anyone will look for such a list rather than a more specific QR like the interruption QR. --Fyren 17:05, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- Oh, that wasn't very obvious. But it makes sense. It would be cool to clarify and improve this article then. I'm kind of busy atm though. — Biscuits (talk
- The articles aren't really supposed to have the same content. This is about "skill" as a skill type, the other is about skill types. --Fyren 14:19, 25 February 2007 (CST)
Excised line[]
- Basic skills with no subtype are difficult to counter. Few skills can counter them, and no skills can prematurely end them.
That's really vague (and awkward). Not all of them have durations or lasting effects. Those with activations can be interrupted by many things. I'm not really sure what Gordon meant to point out. --Fyren 06:05, 4 February 2007 (CST)
- Agreed, I'll try to clean it up. -- Gordon Ecker 19:56, 6 February 2007 (CST)
- I decided to just add a related skills section. -- Gordon Ecker 20:46, 6 February 2007 (CST)
confused[]
So, this isn't immediately clear- a skill is anything? Is something that says 'spell' also a skill? Generally we call anything that goes on a skill bar a skill, but as far as things like Song of Power for example- does the description have to say 'skill' for it to be a skill, or are spells or enchantments (etc) also considered skills? I read the previous talk and it still isn't very clear.--Jasminethetender 11:53, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, every single icon that goes in your skill bar is a 'Skill'. There is a hierarchy of types and that is at the top. Skills are given the most accurate description for their place in the hierarchy, but if it is right at the top then it will only have type Skill. See Skill_type for the hierarchy. Sof or example Agonizing_Chop is an Axe Attack, but it is also a Melee Attack, Attack, and Skill, even though it doesn't say any of those in the description. On the other hand, something like Awe is just a skill, and nothing else. — Biscuits (talk contribs) 14:26, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Visions of Regret[]
Due to the new update, Visions of Regret now affects all "skills", and should be added to the list. I lack the ability to do it but I'm sure someone with more skill can do it. (i.e the people notified about my edit just now) =) Aura of Holy Might 
07:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, there is a first time for everything, if it doesn't work that well, you can always ask, as long as you try.. Anyway, you are right, visions of regret is added..--
-- ( talk ) 07:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Untyped skills[]
This page suggests that Category:untyped skills should not exist, yet it does. What gives? --◄mendel► 10:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those skills do not have any type specified in-game, not even Skill. However, they will never appear "in your skill bar" as this page defines a Skill (they're all monster-only skills). —Dr Ishmael 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like those skills can not be stolen by "thievery" skills or similar, correct? --◄mendel► 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
