This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spells (Origins) article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Formatting suggestions are welcome! Is there a table format available for this wiki that I'm not aware of? I didn't copy out the numbers from the NYCC screenshots because I thought they might be even more subject to change. Well, it's a wiki, so people are free to add what they think is helpful. I guess the spells' general purpose will be more or less implemented in their original concept. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Ok, I found the help on tables. I'll have a look at what can be done. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Readability Edit

I’ve been thinking about the readability of the Spells page. I don’t think that the table format lends itself to large amounts of text as, at the moment, it’s just a wall of text and tables don’t lend themselves to adding pictures. I think this problem will get worse when the game comes out, because the number of spells will increase and the cost of activation still has to be added. I was thinking a possible solution could be to keep the tree progression bit, but having it set it up so there would be a link to an individual article (many of which are already written) and we would loose the tables. I think doing something similar for the skills and talents could be good too. If people really want to keep the tables another option could be to create pages for Spirit, Creation, Entropy and Primal spells and move the respective tables there. Opinions? Loleil 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, any opinions at all? I think the tables have been a good short term solution, but I really feel that this page, along with the talents and skills pages, would benefit from a re-format, whatever that might be. Loleil 08:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I totally forgot about your first post on this topic. I've been thinking about the talents page recently. The table format was good but yes, with more current information available, the present format becomes a mess. I didn't have time to try stuff yet but I will soon. What I want to have is:

  1. Spell icons instead of the >. Are we actually allowed to use the icons from officially released screenshots, does anybody know? For icons, I'd be using parts of screenshots. If this is a problem, let's just skip this.
  2. I'd like the description format here to resemble the in-game spellbook. I agree with Loleil that more description texts make the tables a mess. The in-game format looks good.
  3. I'd write the descriptions as templates since they're used on more than one page. Is this a good idea?
  4. For easier comparison and better overview, I prefer one ability page per type as it is currently. Separate spell descriptions are okay as well - templates would support this even. Without a complete page, I think looking at some dozens spells is cumbersome.

Thoughts and objections? Else I'll give a try I guess. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Yay a reply. Here’s what I think,
1. If it’s fine for us to use screenshots, I’m sure we can use icons taken from screenshots or videos.
2. Are you thinking something like this for the spell book, or is there a more recent image? Either way I think following the official format is a good idea.
3. I think a template could be a useful addition.
4. On reflection, I think you’re right that only being able to access spell descriptions through a link to their page would be a hassle, but I also think having a full description of all the spells on one page would make the page too long. Perhaps a middle ground could be to have the spell page contain a list of all the spell names, but to have a primal, spirit, so-on page, with full details of the spells in that branch. For the talents and skills pages, the same could apply. A main page with a list, plus links to a full page with all the details of that particular branch. Hope that makes sense.

It took 12 days to get a reply, so if there’s no response by tomorrow, I say we can get started Smiley. Loleil 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good that we mostly agree then. Smiley A page per branch sounds ok for now. I guess we'll need to have a look at the results anyway to decide. This week, I probably can't help much but feel free to experiment. I'm interested. Tonguesmiley MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Okay, well I'll give it till tomorrow then I might just start making some little changes, so if it all goes horribly wrong at least not many people will see it, and a couple of test pages to experiment on might be useful Smiley. Loleil 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So I modified the Shock spell page with the newest information to see it in its full glory ... Here are the Official Wiki page and Spellbook screenshot for comparison.

Well, I'd say the spell descriptions are too unspectacular for an own page. One page per spell school is the way to go, in my opinion. I'm just a little unhappy with the icon position, so I messed up your design. Tonguesmiley I agree that it has no place on the right in our format - looks bad. There are those screenshots anyway which looks pretty good. I'd like to use the icon to highlight the spell name though. Ok for you? By the way, I'm happy that you did without tables for the formatting. I'm enjoying them too much probably but they're hard to edit. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

I agree. I thought it would work giving each spell an individual page, but I think the spells are actually quite easy to read having a page per branch and removing all those individual spell pages will remove some clutter from the site. I don't mind the icon reposition and I think it will look even better when we get some more and you're not wrong about the tables being tricky to edit, particularly getting pictures to work! So, with that said, let the reformat continue :) Loleil 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A mage is casting a spell. At least five different images have this nondescript description currently. Is this intended? It seems the images are to be updated and changed while the description remains the same, so that's probably the reason for not being specific. It looks strange though. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

I've been searching for a while now. It seems to be impossible not to have tooltips on images. Probably images weren't intented to be used as icons. Further ideas are appreciated. MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 11:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Mmh, I like it when playtesters generously wave the mouse over abilities. Tonguesmiley Update time! MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 19:47, October 9, 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Thanks, Xavier. One day I'll know how to type without becoming fatigued. Tonguesmiley MyNickIsTakenSoIUseThisOne 22:12, October 9, 2009 (UTC) -- Alexander

Icons Edit

The page looks great, guys. I commend you on your hard work. Thanks a lot for the contribution. --Selty 02:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion: Yup, it looks great. But there is very little content on it. If there were links without icons this page would be one quarter the size and could be rolled into the Mage page and people wouldn't have to hop between pages so much.

Spell Damage ColorEdit

"Damage values are displayed in the game with color coding so you can easily identify the type of damage done." - Really? I'm trying to figure this out because in the listing of colors it says "Electricity = Yellow" and yet the icons for all of the electric primal spells are orange/purple. Looking at the "Spells & Talents" in game & hovering any of the spells all of the info text is the same color. Some are quite obvious which grouping they fall into (like the Primal spells), but the others I'm just guessing at... Or is this color coding only available on the floating damage text after you've cast a spell? We should probably add the damage type to each of the spells &/or have some sort of master list in order to quickly see what spells fall into the Nature category for instance. --Pteague 04:25, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Yea as far as I can tell, elemental types show up in the coloration of the damage text only. The tooltip colors can be misleading.--Tyfosken 15:04, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Power of Blood SchoolEdit

Figured I would add the Power of Blood school like has been done on the rogue. --Haasth 01:37, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Spell Combinations. Edit

Figured I'd add a notification of it on this page, so more people will realize it and visit the Spell Combination page. --Haasth 22:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna redo the spell combos page like I did the regular spell pages and cross-link them for the spells involved in combos. --Various Pickles 00:46, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Elemental Effects Edit

Some research and compilation needs to be done on the little added bonuses given to spell types, like the fact that electric spells drain the recipient's mana/stamina on top of regular effects, fire deals more to the undead (and i swear i saw one on fire pass that fire to another undead), etc.--Tyfosken 15:01, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Raw Data / Formula Information Edit

I've been adding the raw data / formulas to all the spells (and eventually talents, skills, etc.) by using the toolset to examine the game's scripts. I know this process is supposed to be cooperative, but...

Please don't change numerical values from decimals to integers or vice versa!

Even though it looks silly for, say, an activation cost to be "30.0" instead of "30", the game actually handles it as a floating point value. Similarly, things that are integers, for example effect limits are that way on purpose because the game interprets them as such at some point in the code.

If I messed something up or you want to know exactly where some data is from, please tell me via my talk.

--Various Pickles 18:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Formatting Issues Edit

... are fixed-ish. Instead of using the wiki bullet points for ability notes, I use my own. That way, you can edit the page without messing things up :D

--Various Pickles 21:18, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Big Changes Edit

I've redone this page a bit to make it more of a reference source.

  • Removed the screenshot (sorry I keep doing that, but they mess up formatting and usually just take up space).
  • Moved spell types and spell damage colors to a dedicated page, Spell Mechanics.
  • Created new pages for Arcane Spells and Power of Blood Spells.
  • Removed spell affinity since its not in the game - anyone is welcome to make it a separate page and add it as a See Also.
  • Moved spell combinations to a See Also reference - its also going to be referenced on the actual combo spells.

--Various Pickles 02:25, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Smiley. You've helped make the spell wiki's spell pages a comprehensive reference resource and no need to worry about the screenshots, they were mostly a left over of the days before we had spell icons. Loleil 02:42, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Even more is on the way Smiley Smiley. I'm currently redoing all spells and adding even more information (ranges, casting times, effect cones, etc). Take a look at Arcane Spells or Primal Spells if you want an idea of what it'll look like. Also, I know many people aren't going to like the formatting, but I'm trying to organize a huge amount of information in the case of some spells (Blizzard comes to mind...)
--Various Pickles 03:08, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

TOC Edit

I've gotten rid of the table of contents on this page since its already one, essentially.

--Various Pickles 21:20, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

question Edit

can you dispel your own DOT spells? (i.e. Death Cloud, Tempest, Blizzard)?

Sustained Buff Edit

There were some recent changes to this page by User:Evil4Zerggin. I feel like the changes are well intentioned but they are unnecessary and poorly done. The use of abbreviations creates a wall of text that is unsightly and ultimately detracts from the layout. In addition, calling Lifeward a buff instead of a heal is rather arbitary.

I recommend that they be rolled back. -- tierrie talk contr 21:14, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree but let's give User:Evil4Zerggin a few days to respond. Maria Caliban (talk) 19:41, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Such abbreviations existed before I edited the page; I merely extended them to cover all the spells instead of just a subset. Feel free to remove all of them if you wish. Evil4Zerggin (talk) 23:17, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Upon further investigation it appears the original additions were made by User:Cariban. You will also want to remove my changes to Talents. I would find a quick one-page summary of spells useful. In any case this is the last I shall write on the subject. Evil4Zerggin (talk) 23:33, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Gaah! My nefarious plot is uncovered! Well....I liked the original look of the page, it had lots of nice pictures on it. Unfortunately, the picture doesn't really tell you anything useful about the spell. So when I found myself looking things up to find out what spells actually did I just added it to the page. If the group wants the page returned to the original form, then fine with me. I'll just make another one that has information about the spells instead of just a picture and name. Let me know what you decide. Cariban (talk) 16:15, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I've removed my edits and created a similar page with information that looked useful. It contains the icons and names and then summary information about each spell. It is linked to at the bottom of the Spells Page for those that would like a little more information about spells but still on a single page. Cariban (talk) 15:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Re: adjust tag Edit

With the narrower wikia this table does need to be revamped (I assume that is what the tag is in reference to). Or should we do a list (mini icon w/ name) style or at least shrink the icon size to accommodate the recent wikia style?  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 20:24, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Samples Here  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 01:55, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the "hover over" each spell for a description?? Very handy. Please reinstate :)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.