Talk:Skill/Archive 1

Looks like Lightning Storm is finally going to be put in, according to The Races of Tyria. :P -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ironicly,(im not starting a flame war) it used almost Exactly the same attack animation from WoW, Probly didnt have time to make one so they just Borrowed it lol :P --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I mean, how much different could you make a Lightning Storm 'look'? --Spigs 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Recharge

I'm not really sure where to ask this so I'm putting it here for now. Isn't it kind of silly listing recharge rates like in the Frost Trap article, or the Comfort Animal article which lists an energy cost as well. Basically what I'm saying is should these numbers be removed until we get an official article about them? Right now they mean nothing without knowing what the new game mechanics are like, not to mention the numbers could change radically from now until the games actual release.--64.231.43.145 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is information that has been proved. Proved info=good, its what we document. While yes, it looks random, that will actually be quite helpful later on (saves us trouble)... :) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, not really worth documenting, those numbers might change with skill tier and will probably change before release anyhow. -- Aspectacle  23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It all comes down to the fact that the articles look like random crap. But that's what you have to expect as we near the game's release. As much as it hurts my eyes to see incomplete articles, I'd rather have as much confirmed information, no matter how miniscule, than to have no information at all. Keep the info up for now. When we get more, we can update it. No biggie. (Xu Davella 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Tiers

It is with a deep regret that I announce that skills in the demo were tiered, meaning you have to buy a new version of that skill every couple levels. Why Anet didn't have skills become more powerful as the character levels is beyond me, but it is talked about here. Ptarmigan 22:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are the images which show it. [1] [2]. Skills are level gated, improving in tiers at particular levels. The skill descriptions we've seen so far have no real detail about the behaviour. Perhaps this is because they have to cope with the different skill tiers which might bring in different abilities over the life of the skill? Damn weird decision to make...tiered skills...damn -- Aspectacle  22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I never really saw a problem with tiering skills in other games. I always found it exciting to come back from questing and had one more check-in before heading out again, from which suddenly all of my skills were about 20% more effective. Still, I can see why people would be disappointed, and I certainly wouldn't mind if they were tiered automatically by level either. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Auto tiering would make things so much easier for everyone. As it is, this is just another gold sink and an annoying one at that. Anet is also trying to pull every type of person into their game, such as those that never touched an MMO before. This group of people probably won't remember to check the skill trainer everytime they can upgrade, leaving their skills underpowered while making the game difficult. I'm just hoping Anet realizes this before release. Ptarmigan 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be taken into account?

From this video Epic Guild Wars 2 Footage HQ . It clearly shows on the bottom of the screen the skill layout, whether this is just for the demo or not idk, but to me it seems important to take into account-- Magican talk 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean user interface, it's there. 87.97.126.22 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

oh I see, thanks =D -- Magican talk 09:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Signets are common

Shouldn't signets be removed from the elementalist unique skill list as there are some warior and ranger signets? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.4.5 (talk).

I created a new section, I think it's probably the best way to go about it. I'm not sure if there are going to be simply "common" skill types or if they'll be limited to certain professions, so it may be best to change the list later on, but this is a quick fix. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Skill Icons?

Considering Gamescom ended several days ago, I'm surprised to see so many skill icons missing. Shouldn't we have most of them by now? - ThatOneGuy 04:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A question of quality and effort I suspect. You are welcome to find and upload icons if you like. :) -- Aspectacle  04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there were several weapons not usable in the demo, too. I never saw a hammer warrior, at least. Manifold 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here [3] are all the skill icons that are on the Flicker site of one of the developpers (In one big picture sometimes half over eachother): Feel free to download and upload them to the corresponding skill. Some are very bad quality though. (Frizz 11:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Wow, nice find! ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, nice work. :p It took some effort to cut all the icon's from this [4] file. Aperantly, on the gw2guru they didn't want to add it to the main post, even though the main post is now a big wall of skill texts. The thread is found here [5] btw. Frizz 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Nice work :P Also thanks for the links, seems like there might be some new useful info. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 12:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to upload skill images from that file try for a jpg direct from the original source. Frizz's versions are smaller unfortunately. -- Aspectacle  13:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Boo, yeah I found that out later too, I was like: a **** this, lol. I might update the better sized ones. Frizz 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

THere we go, I updated all the pictures now to the better quality from here [6], the link to the pictures is still the same but I'll give it once more. :) Here [7]. I hope that is better to use. ;P Frizz 14:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tiers, Links, and Boxes

First of all, are we going to document all the tiers? If so, are we to make some sort of box for them if there are like 15 tiers? Secondly, the links to gww skills are pointless. If you are playing gw2, why would you even care if there was a skill in gw1 with the same name, especially since most if not all of these skills now have different uses. Finally, can we start to incorporate the boxes for casting time recharge and energy on this wiki? Having them next to the description looks quite unorganized.--Emmisary 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"are we going to document all the tiers?": we have to, or it would be a hole in the game's documentation.

"are we to make some sort of box for them if there are like 15 tiers?": we don't know how many tiers there are for a single skill, which variables are changed at each tier, how power progression is a function of tiers and attributes, etc. It's a bit premature to make skill infoboxes right now.

"can we start to incorporate the boxes for casting time recharge and energy on this wiki?": see above. A couple have been proposed, but we don't have enough information about the skills in order to do so yet. Even in-game ArenaNet is still describing the recharge of skills, as opposed to using an icon system similar to the one used on GW1. Erasculio 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As for links to GWW, I think there should be a discussion about this. There are some pages on this wiki that have infoboxes linking to GWW like Profession (and practically every other concept in GW2) which might be equally pointless to note. (Xu Davella 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

"we don't know how many tiers there are for a single skill" Based on this video(around 22:00) and screenshots i have seen, there is only 9 tiers per skill. Some tier 9 weapon skills are unlocked at level 80 so i doubt there's any more of them. AoshimaMichio 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Standardizing Skill Pages

I think it would be reasonable to outline exactly what should be included in skill pages. E.g. since energy scales with the higher tiers of the skill (or it would appear that way) It shouldn't be listed under the "description" portion of that skill, and rather in a tier box (like stated above) even if don't really have enough resources to make a tier box at this point. I Have also noticed that a user has been including purchasing costs of skills from skill trainers, which should probably be included in an acquisition section such as in GW1. etc.--Repo Man 18:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My edits certainly are currently a bit messy. I was unsure what would be best form to present information so i just left it like that. Some kind table would be best, but i don't know how to make one... 8P AoshimaMichio 18:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Even if we don't have all the data and some of it changes until release, I think a skill layout is really needed. Values can be changed later; we already know the kind of information it's needed (energy cost, recharge, etc.) I really like the GWW skill pages, and I think skill tiers would be the perfect replacement to the "progression" table (apparently, some other people thought that too). The symbols of energy/recharge/casting could exist, even if not included in the game, to facilitate the reading. Profession, type of skill and animation would still apply (plus, a new "type" like 'hold', 'chain', 'burst', etc.); I assume every skill trainer sells the same skills, so the acquisition part would only have the price and, below, could be possible combos the skill does or traits that directly affect it. There should also be a section to register different behaviours of the skill under different circumstances. I think skill chains should either have a noticeable connection between the pages or be all in the same page (with redirects from each of the skill's names), and (Structured) PvP-only versions will still apply...

Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest clue on how those things are done. =P --217.129.133.230 01:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"think skill tiers would be the perfect replacement to the "progression" table (apparently, some other people thought that too)": not really. The progression table on GW1W is something which states how the skill changes in power, which is not something tiers do alone - skill power depends of both tiers and attribute points. Assuming that the tier template will serve to document both plus the increase in energy is false, and would only lead to problems later on. And if you take a look at the tier template, one of the reasons I'm against it is exactly so others wouldn't jump the gun like this and begin implementing a skill page format that would have to be changed very soon.

We do not have enough information about how skills work to make skill articles. It would be a far bigger waste of time to discuss a format now, only to have to completely redo it in a couple months, than to just wait more for a time when we actually know what we are doing. Erasculio 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the attributes can reach hundreds, or even thousands of points; it wouldn't be feasile to put them all in a table. Plus, the math is really simple (damage = skill power + attribute), and the skills don't even show numbers like GW1's, so power is more of a relative thing. I don't think things can change to the point of making any skill layout completely obsolete, but you may be right, we could wait. I just don't like the skill pages at all as they are now, that's all. --217.129.133.230 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"AFAIK, the attributes can reach hundreds, or even thousands of points; it wouldn't be feasile to put them all in a table": so we could use a progression template like the one in GW1W, listing numbers in a x...y...z format.

"Plus, the math is really simple": source?

"and the skills don't even show numbers like GW1's": the skills also don't show icons like in GW1, but is that because the skills won't have icons for energy cost and etc, or because ArenaNet has simply not implemented them yet?

"I don't think things can change to the point of making any skill layout completely obsolete": we have next to nothing to base a skill layout around so far. Just the above is reason enough to make a layout obsolete, if ArenaNet changes how those things work. Erasculio 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's on each of the attributes' pages. That x...y...z format wouldn't be part of the tiers table then, so that table could exist. But as I said, you may be right, we can wait. There are things that can definitely change; I just thought that, since the game is probably going to be released mid-2011 (because of what NCSoft said and because usually betas start +/- 6 months before the release, and the beta isn't even announced), the effort of making a simple and organized layout would be enough to compensate for those remaining months until release. But I have no idea of how those things are done, they could be more difficult than what I imagine (mostly because I imagine a C&P from GWW's skill pages with only a few changes), and I don't want to start an argument. We can wait if no-one volunteers to make a (probably temporary) simple skill layout. --217.129.133.230 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Skills

Question: Is anyone besides me wishing that ANet would put in 10 skills at least for weapons? It's fine for Eles, but they have 4 different elements to attune to, therefore, 20 different skills. But Warriors only get 6 skills, including the Burst skill. I personally don't like having the exact same weapon skills as the guy standing next to me, aside from the rest of my skills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.254.176.76 (talk • contribs).

All professions except the ele can switch to a separate weapon set so they have 10 weapon skills, then outside combat you can switch weapons and then you have traits to really change the power or recharge or whatnot of those skills you already have so it seems like there are still a ton of combinations. - Giant Nuker 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Example: Warrior with a sword and shield. If I wanna stay with a sword and shield for a while, I have to keep the exact same skills. Not so bad if you don't wanna keep the sword and the shield. But IF I want to keep the sword/shield till level 25, then I have to keep the EXACT same set of weapon skills. Aside from my healing skill, utility skills and elite skill, thats not much. But, then again, on the other side of the argument, with Traits you can change the effects of your skills, but that's still not much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.254.176.76 (talk • contribs).

I have yet to see a source as to if those 5 pre-determined skills won't be changed dependent on tier, level, achievements, blah blah blah. Also, properly indent your comments using the right amount of colons (:) and don't forget to sign your comments using 4 tildes (~). - Infinite - talk 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not 100%, but in a demo video someone goes to a skill trainer and it's the same skills to level 80, just with more power and you use more energy. - Giant Nuker 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

They should allow the animations to increase in melo-dramatics. - Infinite - talk 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea was to cut down on the number of skills in the game which would allow them to ater other variables that skills would have an effect on. As mentioned before, the character's traits, attributes, co op use and the skill's effect on the environment grant a greater variation than what you would have in GW1. Also, Warriors can change weapon sets, totalling 10 skills (and two burst skills?) for their disposal. (Xu Davella 03:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

Actually the warrior has a total of 39 attack skills and 6 burst skills, but I do agree that maybe there are too few attack skills, even with the tiers and traits. Though the problem is not about the martial professions, which technically don't need a huge variety of attack skills but about the necromancer who uses spells. I've tested the necromancer in the demo and it felt like he lacks many skills compared to his caster counterpart - the elementalist, which has 60 attack skills. The necromncer has only 20 attack skills, which feels very limited for a caster profession. I hope there would still be an option to swap these skills --Majere 17:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't wanna quit because I'm sick of seeing the same animations for the same attacks till level 80. Unless of course, they have some sort of thing that you can thread together attacks or something. Or like your Z-axis position? I dunno. Kaon Frostblade talk 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could make your sword less bronzy and more "irony". –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WHY did I laugh at that? - Infinite - talk 07:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was well executed. A F K When Needed 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was good. Kaon Frostblade 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've been wondering about as well. I honestly hope Arena net was smart enough to think "Hey. Maybe we should give each weapon for each profession Multiple skills, like lets say maybe 15 each? So a player wont feel like they are stuck with the same 5 skills on any given weapon set." Rather then "Hey! Because we are putting so much work into everything else lets skimp on the skills and make it so what ever weapon set you chose you have to use the same god damn skills as every one else." Lets hope its the first and not the second. Other wise Guild Wars 2 Will fail and I will just keep playing Guild Wars 1 and Rage because I waited 3 years for a game that not only has less skills but not even a respectable percentage of Guild Wars 1. There are a total of 1,319 skills in Guild wars. Thats about 140 for the core professions, 100 for sin and rit, and 85 for paragon and Dervish. I would like to see about 80 skills for each profession. That would be about half the skills in GW1 but still be respectable. --Yozuk 09:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That was one thing about GW1 that wasn't the best. While it is true that there are a good deal of skills, more than half are never used and are wasteful. Most people only play metas anyways. There is almost no creativity anymore. With this method, there are less skills to balance. Even if there were 15 weapon skills for people to choose. Everyone would eventually migrate to maybe 6-7 of them and the others would get cast aside for better choices. I have no objections to a large number of skills for people, but it should be relevant to the section. Maybe 8-10 different healing skills (there is only 1 slot after all), 25-30 utility skills, and 12-15 elites (while I think that elites are awesome, too many runs into a balancing problem). Even these modest numbers should give a fair number of "builds". Venom20 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On an interview they said the main reason why they cut down on the number of skills is basically that specific reason... too many skills, too many crappy skills. Their basic motto comes down to quality over quantity. This also makes it MUCH easier to balance PvP and PvE with less numbers of gimmick builds that break the game. Like Venom said, only a handful of skills in GW1 is actually "good" per profession. Yeah there is about 140 skills that's available per core professions, but about 20-30 are actually "good". While maybe about 50 of them are like LOL-CRAPTASTIC-HORRIBLE, and the rest are meh. While it reduces the variety in gameplay per profession, how many builds are actually good per profession in GW1 anyway? --Lania 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know allot of the skills where rather bad. At the same time there where lots of skills that where good as well. I think saying 20-30 that are good is a great understatement. I've used maybe 50 different necromancer skills on my necro with out even tapping into some very popular skills and made great builds out of them. If there are too little skills then it doesn't matter how many traits there are you wont feel very different from every one else if at all. Also in Guild Wars prophesies each profession had about 60-70 non elite skills and about 10 elite. Thats about 70-80 skills each. It was only after they started adding a great deal more that balance started to become a problem. Another problem that with GW1's balance was the cross profession system. With that it turned 140 skills into near limitless combinations. So 80 skills with out cross professions would be Much easier to balance and would still satisfy players who like to search the world for those skills. Oh and look at it this way. With all the weapons and attunement the elementalist would have 60 weapon skills all together, and thats not to mention her utility skills which you say we should have about 25-30.--Yozuk 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"If there are too little skills then it doesn't matter how many traits there are you wont feel very different from every one else if at all." Oh, I doubt that. --ஸ ķ̌yǾshĺ 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I also doubt it. These new skills, along with traits, make it seem that no matter what skills you use, as long as your skill bar is full you will perform as good as anyone else. Which is how it should be. Eive 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The skills in GW is the number one reason I've been playing Guild Wars for as long as I have. And Yes my statement is true. I've played lots of games with less then a 10th of the skills of GW and those games Did lose allot of game play value after a short period of time. I'm not saying have 1,000 skills. I'm saying have a respectable amount of skills for each profession. And 80 skills each would be a good and effective amount. I like the revealed skills as much as any one else. But I don't like it that much for them to be the only skills I will ever get to use. I would NOT be happy about having a Fixed first 5 skills that are only able to be changed from weapon to weapon. That would also mean that there would be only 2 skills for the offhand weapons for each profession.--Yozuk 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Monster Skills?

Should we document any of these? Like I know one is spider web, which teleports you to the spider and I think slows you a tiny bit for a few seconds. But mostly it teleports you to the spider... Shadowed Ritualist 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC) It also stacks. Shadowed Ritualist 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As in the slowing stacks. And we documented them on GWW, I see no reason why not to document them. - Infinite - talk 00:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The wiki documents the game, they're a part of the game, we document them. A F K When Needed 12:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As above. Details would be nice if we have them. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Area skills

Elementalists aren't the only people who have area of effect skills or spells (for example, marks are AoE). If area spells are something different (ie if only elems have ground targeted AoE) then that needs to be clarified, else AoE needs to be moved to the multiple professions section. I also think that there needs to be a category created for AoE skills, but I don't know how to do that. Thering 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Necromancer marks are also ground-targeting. To be honest I think ANet kind of jumped the gun with labeling them as apparently "unique" to a profession, or at least implying it the way they did. We should probably just identify skill types without attaching them to a profession unless/until confirmed. --ஸ ķ̌yǾshĺ 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Originally Arena Net listed area of effect skills as an elementalist mechanic, but have since then added similar skills to other professions. This article is just a bit outdated regarding that piece of information. I wouldn't like to see a category for area of effect skills, considering how making categories for each characteristic of each skill would only leave us with one hundred categories, all too convoluted to be useful (as often happens in GW1W; this kind of categorization doesn't really give any kind of useful information, and only fills the articles with unnecessary content). Erasculio 02:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thats kinda what I thought, I was checking I hadn't missed something. I agree that too many categories would be unhelpful and messy (a category for single enemy targeting skills would be absolutely pointless) but i think that AoE would be a helpful one. For example, phoenix is currently in categories Fire attunement skills and Staff skills but not in an AoE category, which is just as relevant. Also changing Area spells -> area skills just after posting this Thering 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But Phoenix isn't AoE in GW2. --ஸ ķ̌yǾshĺ 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a video of it, it is AoE. You select where you want it to hit, it flies there, explodes, and heads back to you. Ground targeted like Meteor Shower, Barrage, and Rain of Fire.--Corsair@Yarrr 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The original skill video didn't portray it as well as the demo, then. Never mind. --ஸ ķ̌yǾshĺ 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just went looking for the video. Here it is. Phoenix is used once at about 5:45.--Corsair@Yarrr 06:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Neat, thanks.

Anyway, I'm not so sure about the organizational system on this page, now that I think about it, but I did what I could with the area of effect label. --ஸ ķ̌yǾshĺ 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Skills and Formating

I feel strongly to mention here as I saw another having questioned on the Admin Noticeboard... I do not like the "30 second recharge" or any of that that's been put on a lot of pages or even redone by people. It's like it's been accepted. I prefer "This skill has a 30 second recharge" or for those with instant. "This skill recharges instantly." Not what I've seen... I prefer skills that have actual quotes that have been seen in game, etc. to be quoted - description wise. Otherwise, I feel it should be left alone to ensure that we do NOT know for sure if that is the right quote, but that it best suits the skill from information gathered... So, I do see problems, but I understand the attempt from an Ip at consistency on skill pages. It's not easy to fix many pages that need fixing, but we don't have a "proper" guide for skill pages right now. However, that doesn't mean to go at will... I think it should have been discussed at how to do the skill pages with information available - to have them all similar or the same, before even a mess-up. I'd like to see that now, before things get out of hand or too late. It's sad of me to have assumed that the rest were working as a team for consistency, etc. as they had attempted with boxes, etc. for some skills and had for even halloween main page or the main page. It's silly of me to do this, but I did. Please, let's work this out. As was said, the admin board is not the place to discuss things, when there's issues with skill pages, but a corresponding page is. I feel this to be the page as this is the skill page and should be discussed about skills in general, etc. I hope I am correct at least in the right area. I may not make a lot of sense, but I hope the points are clear... We need consistency with skill pages, not the mess I've seen. I've given my thoughts. I'd like to hear your's. Ariyen 07:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't looked at too many of the skills, but here's a few points:

1. If we have observed the skill description from the demo, lucky us. It'll likely be different when the beta comes out.
2. If we don't know the description, then we'll change it anyways.
3. Try not to write in a full block like that. I have yet to read beyond half-way, and I cannot tell if I've understood you.

G R E E N E R 08:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

These skill pages are all temporary until we decide on a skill infobox, which I know someone has several proposals for. I don't think it's worth perfecting them until we've decided on a skill infobox. Manifold 15:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Manifold, I don't see much point in worrying about this now. Erasculio 17:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a headache to look at skills that have a description like say what it does and then a . 30 seconds recharge." That's not a full sentence and to me is poor. Things like that I prefer to have changed. I'm not asking for everything on each skill page to be perfected, but damn some thing better than "30 seconds recharge", please. Hence, "This skill... " well like I have said in my first statement. Hell, If I did things like that - I'd be fussed at. So, I'm doing the fussing instead. :-P See this one Long Range Shot has what I'm talking about. This one Snarl not quite so much and there are others like Snarl done like that. When I did see in the history of a few skills done like "This skill has a 30 second recharge". Only, it was changed to "30 second recharge." and quoted... Seriously, is that in the description like that? Ariyen 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar doesn't matter if it's in the description. We document things as they are, not as they should be. And yes, if I remember right, it was in the demo description. --ஸ ķ̌ɎǾshĺ 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Icon Art Quality

Question here; are other people thinking what I am thinking about the Skill Icon Art for GW2? One of the things that originally impressed me and I continue to really enjoy is the quality of the skill icon art in GW1. The boldness of the colors and high level of detail in the pictures in most cases provide great artistic appeal. They POP! They're fun. They're exciting! In fact, I often find myself looking forward to a skill recharging just so I can appreciate it's beauty again(thinking Energy Surge & Crip shot here). They even prompted a series of skill pin sets because they're so cool looking!

Unfortunately, from what I have seen to date(here on Wiki & maybe that's the problem.) I cannot say the same for the icon art in GW2. In fact, I am pretty disappointed. The Warrior and Ranger icon art is particularly drab and plain both in terms of color and style. Nor do they seem to show any depth, they're flat. Most have only 1 or 2 colors (outside of black or white line) and the depictions seem rather elementary. "Long Range Shot" really comes to mind here. Contrast Poison Arrow in GW1 with it's GW2 successor. Additionally, many of GW2 skills look basically the same. Compare Barrage vs. Rapid Fire vs. Spread Shot. All three show a few bland whitish arrows against a olive drab green backdrop. Now take a look at the warrior's axe skills too. Bleh, Blah, Boring! They make me want to look elsewhere! And, I am talking about one of, if not 'the', most interactive object on the screen here! This lack of distinction reminds me of something else about the GW1 skill art which is great. In GW1 they are all distinct to the extent that there is virtually no confusion over the skills function.

I know that these are someone's baby so to speak and I do not wish to sound either prematurely or overly critical however, the art for the skill icons is not even close to being on par with the rest of the art and rendering of GW2. For a game that has been in development for so long and pushed back numerous times with the idea of 'getting right', I really hope higher quality skill icons will be included in the final release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.72.195.220 (talk • contribs).

The art for the skill icons is something that can be changed by Anet quite easily, so it's entirely possible they'll change many of them. Personally, I haven't looked hard enough at the skill icons to say whether I agree with you or not, but they aren't even all there yet, and the game is still in production. It's not something I'm worried about.

A side note, and I don't mean to be negative, can you try to use the preview function in the future? I wouldn't have mentioned it, just that the last 40 or so edits on recent changes are mostly edits by two IP's (you above and another) when it could only have been two Thering 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Skill List Formatting

I think the time has come (see here and here) to come up with a standardized way for formatting these skills. IMO weapon skills should be in a table, but other skills should be in list form. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Design is still temporary 'till we know all the variables to skills, so we can't really design a list. However, I propose a list in the same style as GWW's lists. - Infinite - talk 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, should it just be table for weapon skills and list for others, until we have a coherent system (and skill descriptions are not included on the page)? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I'm only really bringing it up because several of the pages have significantly different styles (boxes for all skills, skill descriptions on page) etc. I would prefer it would be uniform, until we agree on something differently. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The List of warrior skills article has a clean table set-up. I am positive we can do the other skill list pages in that same style currently. Let's make sure to keep a set width, though. After we know what to include in an actual, sort-able list we can decide on its formatting. - Infinite - talk 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell, I edited that page as proposal. - Infinite - talk 19:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's too soon to decide on a final skill list formatting scheme, and that if we are going to have a temporary one I would like to use the warrior skill list formatting; I think that the width Infinite just added is a bit too large, I liked the old width more. Erasculio 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The old width was not set, so it caused all lists to fluctuate in width. Very messy. - Infinite - talk 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How's that width? - Infinite - talk 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) 'Tis good, I guess, looks kinda thin on 1920x1200, but, we're not going to get into resolution wars, so I'll say its good. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the 75px width. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Equipped in" should probably say "Slot", judging the looks on the second list. - Infinite - talk 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Although, Burst Skills don't actually have a slot. :P I think the hardest one to fit in will be the elementalist's skills. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 20:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We could view Burst skills as skills with an invisible slot on the skill bar. Also the Elementalist table I can easily redesign to follow other tables, I believe. - Infinite - talk 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Icons

I feel like this should be brought up. Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency when it comes to skill icons? I suggest making icons a file size of (49 × 47 pixels). Partly because consistency is always nice and this template need a good resolution I have a dream that this template will someday be used in mainspace but until then, it'll remain in userspace. Again, that is just my suggestion. - Lucian 4:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Or something that can scale evenly into a skillbar type setting. ;) - Lucian 4:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

images should be the largest highest quality we can get from the game. I don't think we can determine what that size is until we get the game. -- aspectacle  04:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Infinite can tell us the size of skill icons in the game since he uploaded the skill bar?-- Shew 05:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I figured that size is variable based on the resolution of your monitor, how you'd sized your UI rather than anything else. A fixed width to height ratio make sense, but size should always be the biggest and clearest you can find - right? -- aspectacle  05:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a musing, but, when doing things such as build listings or the like, is the massive useless health circle really necessary. I mean, I can understand that you want it too look like it does in-game, but I'm not really sure that the health circle adds anything of benefit otherwise. Aqua (T|C) 05:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Josh Petrie uploaded the current image of the skillbar. The resolutions of his skills are 50px x 51px. Anything that can scale into such resolutions will do, I believe. We can check with help of the Skills template whether or not specific resolutions are working. :)
Also, I propose to introduce a gallery of High Definition Skill icons in time, or because GW2 probably displays icons at their highest quality, just upload the biggest and most detailed version (bring on the GW2 .dat). - Infinite - talk 13:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As seen here, as long as width is less than height, it's a proper icon. - Infinite - talk 17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. - Lucian 17:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Skill Types

For profession specific skill types, I was thinking of maybe having the tango image go right before the name of the page. I.e. On the "Glyph" page, the first sentence would read:
" Glyphs are an elementalist skill type. Each glyph enhances or modifies the elementalist's skills." Aqua (T|C) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would look stupid, no need for that. 91.83.120.61 00:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Aqua, I think tangos should remain with skills of that particular profession. Using them for this feels like going overboard. Just my 2cents. - Lucian 0:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I actually read my original suggestion, it becomes immediately apparent that it is not necessary. :S/^.^ Aqua (T|C) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol ^.^ It happens to everyone... NO ONE IS SPARED!!! - Lucian 1:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone likes to tango. Nyuk.  :) (Xu Davella 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

^ Misery still wants to tango with me. :D As for the idea, yeah, that would be the graphical overboard I ranted about. :) - Infinite - talk 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Acquisition

Where has it been stated that skills can be acquired as loot drops? Or did the enemies in the demo drop skill guides? I couldn't find it by looking at the references quicly.--Tuomir 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Skill targeting also needs to be mentioned here somewhere, if it doesn't have its own page. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Traits change the skill description!

Wasn't sure where to advertise this but here goes. All editors adding skill descriptions to the wiki need to be aware that a skill description can change depending on the traits equipped by the character. I think it is unavoidable that some of the descriptions here will have trait information included but hopefully it is something we will now be able to identify and document separately. -- aspectacle  05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At worst, when the game is out someone can just jump to PvP and record everything. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So should we have the discussion now about how we document this, or are we waiting for more info? (121.73.189.252 06:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

I think for the moment, just vanilla skill descriptions and descriptions of what the traits do. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to grab the "vanilla/clean" version of skill descriptions (not altered by traits, that is) from where ever and add the altered descriptions under the traits header, preceded by what trait is affecting it would be my idea. - Infinite - talk 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, so do we add a short description under the skill of the affected trait like this or do we do without one? I saw an article that had the description without the list but lost the link, (am in the middle of updating skills) (Xu Davella 12:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

I would definitely add trait info. People come to these pages to see what they can do for builds, usually, and traits are now going to be a big part of that. --ஸ Kyoshi 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, we only have to find a way to make them concise lists. I think "<bold> Trait name: <italic> Description of skill." would do. - Infinite - talk 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for a trial period, at least. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

<ri>Or you can do something like this

==Description==
Description
===With [name of trait]===
Modified description

—ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We have no idea how many traits can be altering a skill (let alone combinations of traits), so that would become a long-winded way to document them. - Infinite - talk 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine there being that many that affect a skill individually, it's not like it's hard to scroll anyway. You could even put them in a spoiler box. --92.5.158.173 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean a hide/show box, which isn't a bad idea, but I still lean toward Infinite's suggestion. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have screen shots of Martyr's description with and without the trait Heroic Martyr equipped. the descriptions are identical. --Moto Saxon 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If this still ends up being an issue later, or whatever, the modified descriptin could be entered in the Trait's page. Zolann The Irreverent 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

unlocking skills

does having a weapon at level one unlock all of that weapon's skills on lowest tier? or do we have to unlock them separately?Getefix 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a level 1 character starts with only the first two weapon skills on their bar while the others are grayed out and unavailable. They also start with a healing skill but no utility skills or elite. Sounds Risky | 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

and as we level up we unlock the rest of the weapon skills eg every 5 or so levels?Getefix 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought they had all weapon skills unlocked when they equip them. The Norn Guardian and Human Elementalist from the videos I've seen had. --AdventurerPotatoe - 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This shows what I'm referring to, are you sure the video you saw wasn't of higher level characters? As far as unlocking the rest of the skills, one video I saw showed a ranger buying their third weapon skill at level 3 I believe. Sounds Risky | 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

aaaah so you start with 2 skills (1 main and one offhand?) and each time you level/every 2 levels you can buy the next one? Getefix 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

numbers

looking at the bottom of the skill, you notice numbers that change from red to white, when in target of an enemy and you are in range to use certain skills. Shouldn't this be mentioned in here somewhere? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.45.28 (talk).

elite required or no?

does an elite skills have its own slot or can we replace it with a regular utility/racial skill? Getefix 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The slots on the bar are single purpose, you can only equip skills of the correct type into them. So elites only go into the elite slot, healing only in the healing slot, and utility only in the utility slots. There is more info about that stuff in the article skill bar. -- aspectacle  23:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New type?

The Guardian and the Thief have some skills that could be included on a new type not listed on the page: detonable/activable skills: Cluster Bomb is the thief shortbow skill that throw a bomb and there is a second skill that allows you to detonate the bomb before the impact. Orb of Light throws an orb that you can detonate then with Flash of Light. There is another case but I'm not sure if the second skill ends the effect of the first one or is a new skill that while under the effect of the first you're allowed to use the second one multiple times until the effect ends, this are the pair Zealot's Flame and Zealot's Fire, the fact that the second one doesn't have recharge time makes me think this is a different type and can be used multiple times during a period of time. Note that this skills are 2 phases skills that aren't either Spirit Weapons or Minions. Lokheit 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

With the lack of a better term, we could refer to them as Detonation skills, perhaps. - Infinite - talk 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or Trigger skills. - Infinite - talk 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will send the question to them on Twitter, since I'm already waiting for a response concerning that "aquatic weapon" slot. --ஸ Kyoshi 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could they fall under the chain skill category? They seem to work like chains, just with 2 instead of 3 skills in the "chain"... (pixelmatt)

Sequence skill. Mediggo 18:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Skill formatting

For some pages (example, example), which formatting should be used? Bullets after each profession/race (example), or skill tables (example)? The profession icons seem really redundant. •••Mora 04:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We are waiting for someone to implement the stylesheet changes required to roll out a new Skill infobox which should apply a consistent format across the skill pages. We have to be patient because apparently there is only one person who can do this for us and he is busy. -- aspectacle  04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the profession icon redundancy, especially for skill types that are exclusive to the certain professions. --Xu Davella 09:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Current skill type tables

They look, bluntly, horrendous. The coloration is at best reversed (i.e. content should not be darker than title) and the lack of any border or regular width to the columns just makes it worse. I especially dislike the chains formatting (with the redirect arrows) as it only works a little bit of the time and the rest of the time looks space-y and uneven. I would understand if this is supposed to be temporary, but there are better ways that don't require DPLs that would look significantly better. Aqua (T|C) 17:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Chain skills table edit was my doing, and it was intended as something of a test of an idea. In the edit summary I requested help of someone more skilled with table design and formatting, but summaries are easily missed, it seems. If nobody else likes the idea either, might as well revert to previous version. Other than that, I don't really mind the current tables, they look ok to me. Unless someone comes up with some completely different super special awesome skill table design. Mediggo 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kits

Whilst I understand that there are essentially two different type of kits in practise, by definition they are both still kits. Should we merge backpack kits and weapon kits into a single article (or at least a single skill type)? This should also allow us to make the skill types nav more compact (with a lot less white space). - Infinite - talk 13:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Profession-exclusive mechanics skills

How are virtues, burst skills, tool kit skills, pet skills and attunements (excluding steal and death shroud) not also skill types? I understand why they are primarily mechanics, but they are still skill types, surely? Obviously steal is a type of its own but may as well just be classified a skill, whereas death shroud may as well be classified as a form, with its skills classified as spells. The rest doesn't really go into a larger category as they are not only profession-exlusive skill types, but also unique amongst other skill types. - Infinite - talk 13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Skill replacement

Suddenly there are a lot of skill replacements, at the moment related to the Warrior and Ranger. We simply replace the skills at the time, but shouldn't we place the skills which go replaced below the actual skillbox like on the List of elementalist skills? Since everything is still subject to change, it feels like an usefull addition to me. -- Cyan 10:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Skill page naming with other uses

What formatting should be used for skills with multiple uses:

Different professions

•   Kick /   Kick

Different weapons

•   Disabling Shot (harpoon gun skill) /   Disabling Shot (shortbow skill)
•   Slash /   Slash

Should "skill" be included in the page names? If so, should it also be included with different professions (Kick (warrior skill))? •••Mora 20:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This point was addressed on someone's user talk page; if you put Slash (sword), one might mistake it for a sword by the name of Slash. This is why skill is added. - Infinite - talk 20:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Toggle

As displayed by my edit that I reverted, it seems like the word "toggle" is being interpreted in two ways (or at least, one way by the community and another by me); a) stances, which are turned on and off, and b) skills which turn into one other skill when used (not chains). Is there a different name for the latter that I've missed? --ஸ Kyoshi 23:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a clear consensus on the term for the latter, at this point in time. Stances are toggle skills, in the sense that you switch them on and off. Spirit weapons and the likes are not, in the sense that you activate them and they have their skill replaced by a trigger skill. We just don't have any consensus regarding a term for these trigger skills. - Infinite - talk 00:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough for now. --ஸ Kyoshi 03:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional Skills

Does anyone know if the skills currently shown on this wiki are the full number of skills that will be available to characters upon released? I feel that there aren't enough skills per profession, especially in the case of the weapon skills system in which there is a very limited selection of skills you can have equipped based on your weapon (Main-hand = 3 skills, Off-hand = 2 skills and One-handed = 5). This means that professions such as the Guardian or the Warrior have a greater choice of skills than the Engineer, for example, because of the number of weapons available for use. It'd be nice to see a larger pool of skills, comparable to the selection available to each profession in the original Guild Wars.

weapon skills are set, I highly doubt there will be additional ones. Yes, warriors and guardians have more weapons at their disposal, but engineers have tool kits at their disposal which change their first five skills and act as de facto weapons. There will probably be more utility skills, but anet has stated that they are aiming for less skills than in GW1 to make character building more user friendly.

There will, however, be a large number of traits that modify skills. This way, if you see a necro with a staff coming your way, you will know what 5 skills are in his or her weapon slots, but you will have no idea how these skills have been modified. Perhaps that necro uses a lot of critical hits and has traits enhancing the weapon skills to stack up gigantic amount of bleeding/poison/etc. Perhaps it's a minion master, perhaps it's a tanky, front line necro, ... the possibilities are myriad. Cirocco 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thereby, the wiki doesn't have a full list of utility skills. The only skills we have is what was available in demo's, a complete list is something we are begging for from ArenaNet right now. =) -- Cyan 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tier information

Perhaps we are not at this point yet, but it will be necessary eventually.
I'm proposing making a subpage (i.e. <Skill>/tiers) with a table that has all tier-dependent variables (i.e. durations, AoEs, etc.). People can then add values for certain variables at certain tiers, and eventually we will have all the necessary tier information. Aqua (T|C) 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was said somewhere that skills now just automatically increase in power based on level. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we need to document the relative increases in power... That, however, might be a task for another day, as we don't have any non-tier-based skill demo footage. Aqua (T|C)

Right, and I might also be mistaken. If I have it right, though, it could basically be done with a table ala GWW, recorded in increments of 5 or 10. Working under the assumption that it's done in tiers would probably be best for now. --ஸ Kyoshi 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The New Demo

From the demo in Kenya we will see alot of stuff. But they have now also added a blog post about it. Skills are now unlocked through skill points, which you can get through skill challenges, they replaced that with proffesion challenges. You can read why and stuff here. So, anyone that might want to add that to the page? We should also edit the trait page, saying the system of getting them is about to be changed. Lhimez 15:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool stuff. Korea, by the way, not Kenya. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well yeah, that confused me quite a lot :P Lhimez 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be in there somewhere

Jon Peters said that there will be about 200 utility skills altogether. Every profession will have about 20 utility skills in addition to the racial ones. There are 4-5 heals and 4-8 elites per profession. I don't care where you put it but the info should be in there somewhere. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.80.180.69 (talk).

Good quality guardian, thief, and ele skill icons

Who feels like cropping? http://blawver7.blogspot.com/2011/10/ui-assets.html Konig/talk 01:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Aquadrizzt, I chose me! Aqua (T|C) 03:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you forgot Obsidian Flesh in high res, Aqua --Gorani 16:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

incredibly nice quality ^^ --The Holy Dragons 16:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thief skills acquired by stealing

Thieves will gain new/temporary environmental weapons (and the related skills) by stealing from their foes --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.36.130.114 (talk).

To my knowledge it just grants a skill now, rather than a weapon. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Steal: "After an item has been stolen it will be "pocketed" and replace your steal skill until used. Steal will begin to recharge after the stolen item is used. " Mediggo 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Skills with same name

why don't we have something similar to this for the skills that has the same name in GW1 & GW2? --MageMontu 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We do, but people think a line of text is better than a box. Konig/talk 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer that template, better looking than 1 line. --MageMontu 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Effect formatting

I think we need a kind of effects formatting guide to organize skill descriptions better. Right now they are all a total mess. Alfa-R 19:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)