Talk:Combo/Archive 1

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Talk:Combo.

Page title

I'm not sure if this is a super technical term, but it is definitely a wonderful new aspect in gw2 that should be documented. --Moto Saxon 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The title is so long that people would have difficulty finding it with search, and I think these things would be better documented on their respective pages. (As far as we know, there could be hundreds of them...) Aqua (T|C) 15:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, we should move this to "Cross-profession combination" due to formatting. - Infinite - talk 15:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

At most, this should be a sub-section on skill and individual skill pages (e.g. fire wall), imo. pling

15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Like, what skills this mixes with, and what effect it has with them? like including on cyclone axe that when used inside a Flamewall or line of fire created by Burning Speed or Burning Retreat, it causes fireballs to shoot out? ~~

Kio madoushi 16:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shorter name or part of another article's needed. Whether it's part of another article or not is dependent on the end-resulting size of the article, imo. Konig/talk 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If the page stays, we should add "Combo/Combos" as redirect page. I guess the options are...

A) Have a page for combos with a list of the all combo skills (listed by profession or type or something).
B) Make it a sub category on the skill page with only a brief description, and include any skill combos on each individual skill page that relate to that skill.
C) Both?

I'll be fine with whatever, but it does seem like anet wants to put a lot of focus on this. They said they were planning a blog post or something that really highlights this (after the last profession reveal). I can see it being a really nice aspect of the game that people may want to look up. --Moto Saxon 20:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably all of us have seen the pages on Interrupt and other major game mechanics for GW1... Those pages can get pretty big, but they're a nice addition for showing everything that can do that task. I think when people are looking through skills, they'll want to see how their skills can work with others, so a way to check all the combinations seems pretty important if it really is such a big deal. I think that both idea would work really well, saxon ~~

Kio madoushi 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we can definitely do both. For "A", it can have a layout similar to a list of skills article. Although, more complex. --Xu Davella 09:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to, but the skill super elixir on this page redirects to smoke bomb.174.100.25.69 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back rspike

--BriarThe Spider 15:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

merge/delete

I'm for keeping it and listing all available combos on this one page. I enjoy being able to look through such lists. Similar to pages on gw1w that lists "interrupt skills" or "touch skills" all on one page. It's just fun and convenient. --Moto Saxon 18:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with both tags added. As it stands, it's not much, but once we can actually observe and list the combinations, I presume it'll become quite the large list, thus requiring its own page from skill. I am, however, not opposed to a name change for easier searching, once one can be thought up and decided upon that is. Konig/talk 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with both tags, as per Konig. Looking at the information included in 'skill', I'm inclined to believe that a separate page would be an eventuality. All the skill types are already links to an individual page with a separate skill list along with an explanation of the skill type. A similarly dedicated space to define, document, and access class combinations makes sense. Relying on individual pages lacks an aggregate of information for all users, and though we're short on info now it's likely more beneficial to have a centralized and separate page to determine if there's any sort of systematic interaction in the design and/or an easy way to display/sort such combinations between a not-insignificant 8 classes. For now, I think it's too early for deletion and would prefer a link from 'Skill' section 'Use' and a preservation of this page with eventual colloquial redirects (like Combo or CPC) as they might arise. Redshift 20:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

rename

"cross profession combinations" is to long of a name, and not technically correct because some skills can combo with in a single profession. Thoughts on a rename? --Moto Saxon 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions:

Combination(s) (with combo/combos as redirects) --Moto Saxon 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Combinations sounds too ambiguous. Maybe Skill combinations, with the same redirects, including combinations. ~~

Kio madoushi 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Like what Kio said, combo is too ambiguous. "Skill combination" is what it should be, I think. Singular and stating solely and accurately what it is - combinations of skills.Konig/talk 23:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a dumb question, do we capitalize both words, or just the first? --Xu Davella 05:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First word is auto-capitalized in article titles (e.g., cross Profession Combinations is the same as Cross Profession Combinations). Since it's not technically an officially named mechanic, I vote lowercase. In fact, even if it were officially named something, I'd still vote for lowercase for ease of reading. It's king of Hard, no It Is Annoying, to Read things Like This. Konig/talk 07:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Skill synergy" might be better, but "skill combination" (singular, as usual) would be fine too. pling

17:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Skill combination is a good name for it; Cross-profession would imply that profession-specific combinations are not to be listed. - Infinite - talk 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I would imagine glyph of elemental storage would be an easy way for a single elementalist to even combine elemental skills the way 2 elementalist players could, so it doesn't even have to be multi-player combinations ~~

Kio madoushi 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Perhaps to preclude continued creation of a 'cross-profession combos' page we should still maintain some redirects? We can easily delete it again if we eventually hear the 'official designated name' of what it is (or if the game comes out and there isn't one), but cpc was sort of the language bandied about in prior interviews and posts. Redshift 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know we discussed this a while ago, and a rename was decided, but given the fact that anet continues to use "cross profession combo" as the technical term, i feel that the wiki should also. we are supposed to document fact, not just make it easy to look up. Using combo(s) as redirects will suffice. It's really no different then how we have a page on "animal companions" despite them being commonly referred to as "pets". --Moto Saxon 14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all skill combinations are necessarily cross-profession (especially the ones that depend on ammo/weapons in conjunction with a certain skill). Aqua (T|C) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That issue was addressed by jon peters and is reflected in the description, yet developers still choose to call them cross profssion combos. the community has already adapted the terminology. I think we should reflect that in order to preserve the integrity of the wiki - we document how it is, not how we think it should be. just my two cents :) --Moto Saxon 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ayuh, I think this warrants a second pass of consideration. "Cross-profession combo" is explicitly stated as the designated term ("Cross-profession combo is the term we use"), and though "skill combination" has its given logic that we've established, it just isn't the official handle. At the very least there should be a "Cross-profession combo" redirect added (in addition to the extant "Cross-profession combos"). My two cents of the mornin'. Redshift 11:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

remake

just when i looked at the site i was thinking of even more combinations that wasn't even up.. why can't we make a topic named "interactive skills" and add static field and fire wall to those? with a description on Static Field "only known to be interactive with physical projectiles like bullets and arrows" and Fire wall "interactive with physical attacks from arrows, bullets and some AoE melee attacks, Whirling Defense and Cyclone Axe does spread out fire while interacting above the wall" or something similar? --Zora_Diem 22:43 6 August 2011 (UTC)

List of possible skills with combos to keep an eye on (when watching demo videos and such)

Elementalist

Warrior

Hundred Blades
Rain of Fire (if you're in AoE, do you gain additional damage/effects?)
Tremor Blow
Flurry

Ranger

Necromancer

Reaper's Mark (bleeding or vulnerability, both or random?)
Chillblains
Putrid Mark
Mark of Blood
Grasping Dead
Locust Swarm
Wells and Marks like Well of Suffering

Guardian

Thief

Engineer

Racial and other

Comments

Feel free to add more skills if you feel like they'd make for reasonable combos. Mediggo 07:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this article is going to be a very popular resource... and a potentially messy one. :S --Xu Davella 11:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, might need a multi-dimensional table for it or something. If anyone has pro table skills... Mediggo 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking we will have to wait till we are in game and can do some testing before we put to much effort into a template/organization. Hopefully there will be a master of damage like in the battle islands of gw. --Moto Saxon 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They said there would be certain skill "types" that would interact with each other. Naming the types would make it much easier, since we can just list them elsewhere and say which ones combine here. --ஸ Kyoshi

19:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

thank god you guys made this update on the page.. not god at wiki'ing, but people should try cross-combo the rangers traps, it would be very interesting if it would work.. but i doubt it, thx for "muddy terrain" doesn't look much, maybe you do an "throw dirt" effect and blind every1 the projectile hits while Whirling defense'ing in it? would be cool! //Zora_Diem19:53 11 august 2011 (UTC)

Throw Dirt just blinds in one shot (ignoring for a moment that you can't use Whirling Defense while downed). --ஸ Kyoshi

03:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ment more like if u used Whirling defense in muddy terrain while it was triggered, mud= dirt, dirt in eyes= hard to see. this combo could be implemented but i think it's not thx for traps have to be triggered to make it even look good. //Zora_Diem08:39 12 august 2011 (UTC)

Muddy Terrain especially states that it will "create an area" which sounds suitable for some kind of combos. Dunno really, though, swinging mud with your axe seems a little... unconventional. Mediggo 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

that's why i don't think traps will be combos. same with Frost Trap... shooting your arrows through it while triggered should make your arrows frost, and then chill the foes it hits? it doesn't seems that it will be in it, thx for u have to trigger the traps for making it look good at all.. Zora Diem 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"All attacks"

So far, skills like Static Field only augment specific attacks (i.e. rifle/pistol shots) that pass through the area of effect. Is there a reason that it is listed as all attacks? Aqua (T|C) 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Source, Ctrl-F 'Poison Cloud' Mediggo 16:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The only skill I see mentioned there is Poison Cloud. There is nothing about the other ones. Aqua (T|C) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's basically same type of AoE skill. It would make little sense if same kind of AoE behaved differently. It would discourage various playstyles (such as axe warrior playing with air elementalist with Static Field, for example). And Poison Cloud in that interview is more of an example anyways, because that site is mainly focused on documenting/featuring necromancer profession. "So when anyone is in this and they’re attacking, they gain of the benefits of what’s in it." I made that particular edit on the article, and that's my reasoning. So far I haven't seen a mention that Static Field would affect only specific kinds of attacks, either. Mediggo 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that they stated that Static Field augments rifle shots; I doubt that all AoE functions the same so I'm changing it to reflect what we know. Aqua (T|C) 16:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't Forget that Spells fall under the umbrella of the classification attack. If someone can clarify whether spells are or are not affected by poison cloud that would be helpful. -- Blue Phoenix

19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

this page will be way to big

lets create two sub pages "initiator" and "finisher". on each page we can list, by profession, a list of each all possible initiators, the finishers it interacts with, and a description of the output, and vise versa for finishers. let's create some sort of template/spreadsheet for this. --Moto Saxon 14:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

While I do not know if I like the idea of two subpages as of yet, I do agree that when the tie comes a subpage will definitely be needed. Venom20

15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. leave as is for now since we only know of a few combos. but adding an initiator and finisher pages will eventually be needed. --Moto Saxon 15:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of not getting to carried away, should we only add combos that we know of? for example, let's NOT add, every bow attack as a finisher to flamewall. we haven't seen them all and don't know how every bow attack interacts, if at all. --Moto Saxon 15:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a main problem is that this could lead to a large number of assumed combinations. I agree with documenting known and currently stated combinations. For instance, in the latest article there is a mention of a smoke screen. I am unsure if this is smokewall, a new skill, or an environmental effect. Thus I used the "any" icon perhaps as a placeholder. We could do the same thing with bullets or arrows for now since it was mentioned in the past. But I hope it doesn't get carried away. Venom20

16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For now let's do that. use the common in conjunction with "all arrow skills" or "bullets", so that we keep intact what we do know, until we get the game. --Moto Saxon 16:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd also be good for each skill page to list possible combo opportunities. For example, the Frozen Ground page would have a list of all skills that can be used with it to trigger a combo (starting with the one we know about, Stomp) and describe what the effects of each combo are. 71.226.51.118 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That very well might be useful and necessary, but I do also think a "wait-and-see" approach might be worthwhile here--if there are indeed "broader" categories of interactions then it's simpler to say "x skill is a projectile type initiator and works with these finisher types" rather than tables and tables of skills. This, of course, is only useful if there is some sort of type, rather than many individual tailored interactions. Redshift 11:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sortable

Can anyone teach my, perhaps by doing it, the secrets of getting the profession and skill columns to be sortable. Unfortunately the only method that I know of will make the initiator and finisher columns sortable which completely destroys the table when used. Perhaps a table within a table could work. Venom20 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That'll be too messy. Separated initiator and finisher tables will do just fine. It's impossible to list all actual combos since it'll make too big table and it's also unnecessary since the effect is so apparent according to the init/fini skills used.

really? frozen armor from a ground stomp is apparent? Venom20

20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I'm wrong.

Glastium | talk 22:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Initiators + Finishers

Perhaps we could make tables for initiators and finishers that group them by field. (i.e. All the ones that generate fire fields for initiators, and then all the ones that interact with fire fields for finishers.) It would probably be more efficient... Aqua (T|C) 22:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a table that can be sorted multiple ways? Instead of alphabetizing? I like the idea, though. --Xu Davella 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, why not, it's like DPL, almost. (Also, in the event clarification is needed: there will be separate tables for initiators and finishers.) Aqua (T|C) 00:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

According to wikimedia changing sort-type should be easy enough. But perhaps it depends on the version of the wiki. This might be slightly over my pay grade. Venom20

01:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on a skill DPL and all of my tests of sort-keys seemed to indicate that they didn't function... Aqua (T|C) 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Adds Fire Damage"?

This description in the table seems a little inaccurate, since there is no indication that different damage types exist in GW2. The projectiles may impose the burning condition on foes, but this is not the same thing as fire damage. Perhaps "Arrows burn foes" would be better? BrettM 18:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

neither do we know if they do apply burning to foes. leave as is for now. --Moto Saxon 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)