Template talk:Skill infobox/Archive 1

Template and conditionals

I've added in a weapon because some skills are tied to a specific weapon type. But I'm having some trouble with the template. Either I don't get the new row because the if isn't on a new line, or I get an extra row because I have put the if on a new row. -_- Does anyone know how to fix this? Otherwise this template looks ok for capturing the limit info we have so far - it is tough to generalise when we've only got details on one profession. -- Aspectacle  23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything fixed. poke | talk 12:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Activation times and energy cost can be put in too, can't they? We have no official icons for them, but they are confirmed to be in the game. -- NilePenguin 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But we won't have any values for them right now, so it is a bit pointless. poke | talk 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up for me poke. :) -- Aspectacle  23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems?

At the moment (18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) there are a few things that may need work:

1. The 'Type' link is unresolved. Shouldn't it link to 'Skill type', or 'Spell type'?
2. The 'Attribute' parameter is implemented but undocumented. What is it supposed to describe?

--Max 2 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1. We are talking about it right now, but look like spell type will move (I'll move it tomorrow if no one say no).
2. Nothing, I guess copy&paste wrong, we know nothing about attributes in GW2.

-- Itay Alon • Talk 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Regression tests

The 'Examples' section provide both unit tests and regression tests. Removing them is very unprofessional and very discourteous. You deleted the test file pages, so there were few 'wanted pages'. (There were some due to tests for unimplemented features and those examples could and probably should be removed.)

Finally, what happend to discussing reversions?

--Max 2 02:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Design

There is a proposal for a new design at User:Loquay/Skill Infobox Draft. I'm personally fine with it as-is since we don't know enough information to consistently have slot/activation/cost/etc. --JonTheMon 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There'a another suggestion in [[User:Venom20/skill|Venom's userspace]] and AFAIK, the first proposal was mine, in my sandbox. Chriskang 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently in favour of Loquay's Version 2 as the skill infobox draft, as I find a change due to new game-systems required and (with all due respect) find the other options slightly amateuristic. - Infinite - talk 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Loquay's version is certainly the most advanced proposal, but it still doesn't sit quite right with me. I do like that it is more minimalistic, but that comes at the expense of not explaining what each piece of data is (i had to tooltip to figure out the up arrow was the level req). I also thought adding the chain to the infobox was nice, but I didn't like the "sort" sequence above it. And i wasn't too big a fan of the image link to the lists, but that could probably be reconciled. --JonTheMon 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Labels are needed. It shouldn't be necessary to look at a tooltip to understand something. Clear organisation of content within the box is also needed as info is currently scattered around the box. GW2's skill mechanics are more complex than GW's, so this is all the more important. While it looks somewhat pretty, it's at the cost of clarity and functionality. I also don't like the image link to lists. pling 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the "level image", I wrote it is just temporary (it is actually the enchantment requirement icon for assassin's 'Golden' combo skills in GW1) so it should be changed (any proposals are of course welcome). And the image link to lists was my reaction to when the skill navbox discussion started here and it in fact proved much more troublesome than I first thought (mainly decentering text and the fact that some types have no list pages), so I would also support its removal with the addition of the aforementioned navboxes (hidden by default, as seen [[User:Venom20/sample skill page|here]]). And last but not least, I feel that labels are unnecessary (or even disturbing and space-consuming) because text like Weapon skill → Staff → Fire or Elementalist simply needs no additional comment. 15:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the links to lists — pretty much useless, not really favourite and disarranging the layout. Now it should look a bit better. 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to have links to lists in infoboxes instead of navs? By the way, the traditional layout you have at the bottom is a lot better than the top. It's easier to understand the information when labels are attached, particularly for newbs. pling 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Except for level lacking a distinctive label (which had changes mentioned on the version 2 talk page), what is not a clear label in the top proposal? Is it truly necessary to preceed every link with a label indicating the link's purpose, as obvious as it might be on its own? Not to mention the fact that the labels are links as well, further adding useless links to the skill box. (I've never actually seen clicking on the [[Type]] link in a skill infobox, why have it altogether?) Because I'm madly in favour of this new design I am just interested in knowing where the general objections come from, exactly. The only thing I noticed changed was that the version 2 no longer links to the list of skills in the attribute/weapon type and equally missing the list of profession skills. I'm not sure about that as of right now, I'm more in favour of an older version where those lists were still part of the box. - Infinite - talk 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the links to the lists for two main reasons (which doesn't mean I can't revert it, of course): 1/ it broke the layout — most importantly, the text that was supposed to be centered was a bit off and then, when there was a line with no list link, it was asymmetrical; 2/ I don't know if you actually noticed this but, apart from the professions, all the icons linked to the same page as the text (e.g. both linked to Staff) because there aren't any list pages for those, which was a bit useless. This could be solved either [[User:Venom20/sample skill page|via a hidden navbox in the bottom of the page]] or adding it back to the infobox, preferably in a different way. But if you would generally be in favour of it returning as it was, so be it. The level could also be (apart from the option to simply change the icon) dropped altogether because the same info will be given in the skill tier template as well (but what to put there, beside the recharge, instead?). I could also write about the labelling but it would basically contain the same points as Infinite above me, so just feel free to re-read that again. 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I put back the link to list in the form of a small-sized text next to the profession/race, which doesn't break the layout anymore and the navbox is once again not needed. So, now it should look a bit better while keeping the functionality. 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to mouse-over "list" to realise that it means a list of elementalist skills; "Elementalist (list)" just doesn't do it properly. "Weapon skill → Staff → Fire" doesn't make sense to me either, while your traditional version does. I don't agree that this is "obvious", Infinite, and I'm not sure why you think GWW's "Type" is never clicked just because you don't see it being clicked.

I don't understand the placing of each bit of information. "Ground AoE" seems to be in a random place. It seems you've placed things according to how it looks the nicest, not how it can be understood the easiest. Why does the infobox differ from centre-aligned to left- and right-aligned? The information isn't easy to absorb quickly/at-a-glance, which goes against one of the infobox's purposes. Personally, I prefer to have text starting along one margin for ease of reading. The traditional layout is nice-looking, appropriately linear, and simpler, in my opinion. pling 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can refer to the actual pages on these templates as to what my perspectives are on the original infobox. A simple change could sway me over in favour but such actions have not been taken yet. I must say, sticking to the original GWW skill infobox design is (as far as I can see) just a matter of personal taste at this stage. The exact same things are covered in both boxes, the only thing loquay changed on his own accord was leaving out the Profession label. The type link is something which speaks for itself. Also, I always held "Type" in a bad daylight; Skill type can mean a lot of things. A skill type could be that it's a spell, that it origins in the staff line, that it is only available in Fire Attument, or that it is a ground AoE. This is why I disregard that label altogether. Either way, as some of us have already been doing; you are free to conjure a version you find more along the lines of what your wishes are on the page where the ideas currently originate from. - Infinite - talk 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Loquay's traditional version. It's more than just "personal taste" that sets it apart from the other version. Also, if Talk:Main Page/editcopy is anything to go by, creating 9000 different proposals makes it harder to get any proposal implemented. pling 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But that did occur. Sandboxes were sweeped to get every user's say in the ultimate consensus of last re-synch. - Infinite - talk 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually think Loquay's Systematic version is well superior to the Traditional version and other proposals. While it may take a moment to figure out what everything is the first time you see the infobox, once you understand it, all information (for that skill and every other) is easily digestible at a glance, and isn't that kinda what infoboxes are for? Else we'd just have a long wall of text: "The activation cost required for this skill is 5 energy, with an activation time of 2 seconds and a recharge time of 25 seconds" etc. Not saying it's perfect as is and can't be tweaked, but I'd go with Loquay's Systematic version as the starting point. - Tanetris 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RI - I dunno. The good thing about the traditional one was that I didn't have to decipher what the information meant, and it is easy to mentally disregard the explanatory information the more you look at different skills. Version two is sleek and to the point, and although it is still being worked on, I am very critical over the idea that it relies on the fact that users will assume what the information means, instead of having it listed and detailed. The level icon with the number next to it for example doesn't even explain anything: Does it mean that it has seven levels? Or is it a level seven skill? (Xu Davella 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

I'll tell you how I got the idea to make a label-less infobox (apart from the fact that it's more concise and such) — I thought about how to name the labels for the different information (while writing the traditional version) and got to the following point: Signet? Type. Charge skill? Type. PBAoE? Type... Weapon skill? Erm... type, maybe? And then I came to the conclusion that the labels don't help in any way to understand the given information because what it talks about is part of what it says.

The level icon seems to be a tricky one. In fact, I was trying to display the tooltip "Required level to learn" while linking to Level but however I write the code it simply displays "Level". As I already said, there is also the option to completely leave it out, because the information will be duplicate with the skill tier/energy table. 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The only solution I can think of is to create the "Required level" page and use it as a redirect to "level" and then change the thing to read "link=Required level". Not very concise tho....(Xu Davella 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

Or you could just say "Required level: 7". I'm not familiar with the technical terms for skill mechanics, so I can't help you with what to name the labels. (I think that illustrates another reason why labels are useful: to explain those terms with contextual examples.) pling 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I really like the look and feel of the label-less box. I think it is suitable for the nature of the information we have at the moment. I do think it is premature to get too enthusiastic about any particular approach - a tier might change the recharge or the cast time of the skill which neither approach captures well. I think it is going to be more difficult to succinctly explain how all of the tiers, attributes and what-have-yous interact with each other to affect a skill. -- Aspectacle  00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To be very honest, we can dumb down a user that much that we need to label the Skill Icons in the boxes as well. I opted for the non-tango experience icon to display level for 2 reasons; 1. It's the icon for experience, therefore the user will most likely take it as level requirement, if not, the tier nav will show them at what levels the skill will be available. (We *could* even leave out the level requirement for that reason, but to me it is a pre-set must for the box.) And 2. There is not yet a tango icon for experience and/or level. Perhaps there will arise a clear icon for level in the future and then we can replace the experience icon with the level icon. If not, I believe the experience icon will suffice.

As I mentioned before; the same content is listed. It is just done in a different manner which is more concise and, to any regular GW2 gamer, most likely clear.

/rant

Aspectacle has a very good point there; we have no information as to how tiers affect skills after their original tier. Meteor Shower might double its damage output towards a specific type of enemy at tier 4 or it might inflict Burning from tier 3 onwards, etc etc. I also believe it was loquay earlier pointing out that skills might not all have an equal amount of tiers to them, maybe that would be valuable information that needs specific listing. Perhaps all the information that is crucial to documenting the skills proves to be too much to list in the new version. At least we then know we have another type of infobox that can handle listing everything without much trouble. I just think that the labelling doesn't always clarify the information listed. Of course, see below for the solution to such labels. - Infinite - talk 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the example skill infoboxes even for version 1 so that we can better see all the pros and cons. I still believe that labelling is unnecessary or even disturbing — for instance, look at the Sever Artery v1 infobox, it is maybe even bigger than the page itself will be. Not to mention the fact that the labels often don't even help understand the text — a newbie might not know that signet is a skill type, but even the knowledge that it is a skill type will not help him in any way unless he clicks the signet link and reads about it, which is well possible in both versions, while those who do know that signet is a skill type don't need to read about it at every single signet skill page. And as Infinite said, we also don't put up labels like Skill name, Skill icon or Recharge time... 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Type"

Ok, I'm gonna have to agree with the above that using the phrase "type" is somewhat ambiguous. So, I propose a slightly different naming scheme.

• Type = Attack skill/Stance/Banner/Trap/Glyph/etc.
• Source = (Weapon[Give specific weapon])/Elite/Healing/Pet/Special/Downed
• SubSource = Main-hand/Off-hand/Air/Fire

How would that appeal to everyone?

Question B: If such a scheme was adapted, where would AoE fit into it? It's not really a skill like an attack skill or glyph. AoE seems like a secondary type classification. --JonTheMon 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The overarching grouping of Type is good. That is ArenaNet provided so I guess we'll take that as given. The other two I'd split a bit differently. Source I'd name to Slot or Slot type and include Utility, Environmental Weapon as an option and drop the specific weapon specification. SubSource I'd name Source or similar and have 'main-hand axe', 'offhand axe' 'air staff', 'jar of bees', 'hazmat suit' as examples of the division there.

AoE, projectile, projectile which you can't dodge you could consider attributes of the effect of the skill? I still haven't quite the pattern of the effects in my mind but it seems pretty closely tied to the grouping type of the skill? -- Aspectacle  00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I really am not a big fan of the "slot" terminology. It seems... overly restrictive or something. I know it relates to the skill slots, but I don't think it's a good way or classifying skills. And why don't you want the main slot/source to be the actual weapon? --JonTheMon 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see weapon skill at the same level of description as elite, healing &c. At that level it describes one aspect of the skill - in what type of slot or player situation it can be found. The relationship seem to work well for fitting in the environmental weapon (bundle item?) skills which are granted to the character when they hold or interact with an item. You might consider weapon skills being granted in the same sort of way - by holding the axe you get axe skills in the same way holding a jar of bees give you jar of bees skills.

You could (using your terminology) have jar of bees as the source, which would fit it at the same level of weapon axe skills. You could then use the info box to describe it as an environmental weapon skill, but what of profession specific environmental weapon skills? (Rock apparently grants only elementalists a Meteor skill.) The relationship seems more easily described using the split I have described. I'd draw diagrams but this post is already long enough as it is.

Why do you like the way you've split it? o_O ^_^

I agree that slot is not broadly descriptive enough word for all it covers. It is the best I could think of at the time I'm still struggling to think of something better. -- Aspectacle  23:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I believe the descriptions are absolutely pointless. We're trying to think up the label names and groups, which in turn is extremely misleading. I mean, what good is it for a newbie to read the "type" is a glyph? He has no idea how the skills are divided (or worse, how we divided them) and if he wants to know what the "glyph" means, he'll click the link and read about it. What more does "Sub-source: Off-hand" or "Slot: Elite skill" tell a newbie than simply "Off-hand" or "Elite skill"; that is, other than completely confusing him with "our grouping/labelling system"? Moreover, the "off-hand" information can be in context of the respective weapon (e.g. "off-hand dagger") as well as the "weapon skill" text and everything is nicely grouped into one clear piece of information, unlike if there would be several isolated lines saying "Slot: Weapon skill; Source: Dagger; Sub-source: Off-hand" or something like that. Therefore, the labels aren't really helpful, rather space-consuming, making it actually harder to read (filter) the information and quickly find what you're looking for. 12:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, where did that come from loquay? This is an organizational discussion, not a display or label discussion. We could come up with a solution here and still not have it displayed in a label, just perhaps used for the infobox parameters.

Aspectacle, I'm just trying to think of how many tiers of organization we want, and how many similarities we can group together. Since weapon skills encompasses 2 additional sets (main-hand, off-hand, or just 2-handed), I figured it didn't need a specific mention. Granted, my system doesn't handle main-hand-only or off-hand-only overly well (like focuses). I can see where you'd draw a parallel between (environment->jar of bees) and (weapon skill->off-hand dagger), but I wanted a system where you wouldn't need complex classifications (dagger->off-hand instead of off-hand dagger), creating more common sub-divisions (aka, re-using the generic off-hand classification). In the display text you can go ahead and have "off-hand dagger" but underneath it'd be two separate pieces of info. --JonTheMon 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reattempt

The last attempt on consensus reached a dead end. Let's reattempt consensus but in parts, possibly.

I would like to start on the colour. The colour proposed here, is it alright with people?

Then the design. As you all know the discussion above narrowed down to the choice between Old-school GWW's infobox and Loquay's Systematic version. Both versions can be seen in theory-craft here and in prototype action with minor changes over here. I am sure we all have a personal design favourite, but please judge the designs on their effectiveness.

It would be amazing if this discussion can reach an actual consensus soon, as we already have a Weapon infobox, an Armor infobox and an NPC infobox. Some contributors (read: especially me) would really like to start properly document the skills by now. - Infinite - talk 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think i could make a couple changes to the infobox V2 to make it look fine, may i add it above/below your one? (on the page) --Neil • 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh bugger that, ill just say this now- im just thinking we could space the V2 (syst.) out a bit, put a bit of room in it, at the moment its just way too squished-in. Also, about the colour itself (which i failed to see in that sea of code) needs a change, i think we need mellow shades of each of the profession's colours, im about to add some now. --Neil • 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, below.

---Warrior---

---Elementalist---

---Necromancer---

---Ranger---

And here are just speculation..

---Paladin/Paragon/Holy Warrior---

---Mesmer---

---Assassin/Rouge/Ninja(lol)---

---IdontevengoddamnedknowwhatthismightbepossibledruidorshamanorsomethinglolWoW---

What do you think? im unsure about the mesmer, but assassin (they've talked about stealth in the interviews) seems to take literally every shade of mesmer purple/pink. --Neil • 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a new page with examples using several colour schemes, so that we can actually see them in use. 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic question related to this change: Will the Skill *Tier* template also be redone based on the colours we end up deciding on? I would suggest to do so (or to not change the colour on this one, whatever we end up fancying). - Infinite - talk 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering that as well, and would suggest likewise. 23:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I still belive this is the kind of thing we will only be able to discuss once we know more about the game; for example, will the professions have some kind of symbol like they did in GW1, or will we have to state the name of the professions? Likewise, I think the color discussion will have to wait until we know all the professions, so we don't end with two having almost the same color (the third adventurer will likely have a color similar to that of warriors, for example).

I don't like the traditional layout. I think it's too blocky, and it would eventually be too big id we were to show there all the relevant pieces of information. I like Loquay's version more, but I think it's too small - it looks a bit odd on skill articles themselves, and I would like it to convey a few more pieces of information than it does (required level, for example). In other hand, I wonder if we shouldn't have consistency between all infoboxes - shouldn't we use the same main infobox layout for NPCs, items and skills? Erasculio 12:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

<wikiOCDalert!> Eras used to c-word! Now I am going to twitch at Loquay's version 2 if we implement it. Maybe I can cook up something to have his proposal work within consistency.. Other than that, maybe implement a temporary skill infobox with the traditional colour as a placeholder. After all, it's a matter of template recoding to change all of them across the wiki anyway. - Infinite - talk 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We could change all other infoboxes to a layout more similar to that of Loquay's skill infobox, if we really want to use it. I'm not really fond of the traditional infobox layout (I think it worked on GW1W for skills due to the profession icon behind it, but otherwise if felt a bit dull).

In other hand, I have finally identified what is bothering me about Loquay's proposal: I think the section below the thin line needs to be changed a bit. For some skills, it says "Unknown skill type"; but the Category:Skills by type divides skills based on weapon, utility, healing and etc, so we know the skill type of most skills, and the skill infobox is already stating the skill type at its top. For other skills, the same section states "Point blank attunement", which is stating the skill's area of effect, which IMO makes it very confusing to new players. I would like to keep the top of Loquay's infobox (most of it, actually) and change the bottom.

Again, though, I think this is the kind of thing we will only be able to decide once we know more about the game. What, exactly, do we want to show people at the skill infobox?

• Energy cost, casting time, recharge, icon, profession? Those are a given, right.
• Type (as in, utility skill, weapon skill, healing skill)?
• For weapon skills, which weapon is the skill for?
• For weapon skills, which skill slot does the skill occupy?
• The skill's initial description (if signet, shout, trap)?
• For chain skills, the other skills in the chain?
• The skill's area of effect (groud targetted, cone, point blank)?
• Required level?
• How many tiers that skill has?
• Availability of tiers based on level?
• Which attributes modify the skill (if intelligence or strength, agility or perception)?
• Related traits?

IMO, most of those should not be at the skill infobox, but we don't really know a lot about how the skills work for now. For example, does energy cost change based on skill tier? Is it always a percentage of maximum energy? Does that percentage change? Does the recharge and casting time change with different tiers? Are there skills which become more powerful - as in, with a different description - on different tiers? And so on. Erasculio 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If a new profession were to have a similar colour to one we would already be using, we can always change them a bit. Also, partially for this reason, we should probably stick to the colour schemes created from the official .xml file, that is Venom20's V1 or V2. Also, no matter if we would add symbols of the professions in the future or not, their names would still have to be stated, so it doesn't really matter right now.

The infobox being small is pretty much the point, so that you don't have to search for the information somewhere in a large table but basically see all of it straight away. Or at least that's how I view it. I left out the required level because it is unnecessary: first, it is slightly misleading because it only shows partial information (only tier 1), and second, the same info (and whole) is given by the skill tiers navbox, which, I guess, will have a similar function to GWW's skill progression template -- it would be like insisting on putting the weapons navbox on the Weapon page.

Now to the consistency question. To be honest, I've been thinking about it for quite some time and was kind of afraid of it; in fact, I was planning to create other infoboxes with that style, starting with traits, but the fact that armour and weapon infoboxes are already up and running might slightly complicate it, for some people anyway. I'd personally say it doesn't at all matter as long as each infobox fits its place, both information-wise and aesthetic-wise; and if it became a big problem at a later date, we could just change them one way or another.

Anyway, I'd like to start thinking about the colours. I'd personally choose Venom20's V1, with the exception of warrior using the lighter colours; what about you? 15:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with removing the area of effect, I agree it's rather confusing. The main problem I have right now is: for signets, traps etc. this fact should be included in the box, but what about the rest of the skills? Should there be Skill/Spell/Attack... or nothing? 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to do it the other way around - remove the "signet" and etc description, but keep the area of effect. Using GW1W as an example: notice how, on skills there, the only piece of information repeated at both the main article and the infobox is what they call skill type (if binding ritual, signet, trap, etc). I think we could leave that information only at the main article (assuming the GW2 skill descriptions will state those things) and leave it out of the infobox. Erasculio 15:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Energy Blast has the full in-game description. As you can tell, it's limited in the information it presents one with. - Infinite - talk 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the definitive version... The skill information we got from the demo had no icons, described the recharge as text instead of using some kind of icon, did not describe energy cost or recharge, did not describe amount of damage dealt, and so on. I had the feeling those were more placeholders for the demo than the real thing. Erasculio 15:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

ArenaNet officially stated the demo has finalized information, unless appointed clearly with a (Demo) tag. I suppose the UI we have seen is finalized for that reason as well. - Infinite - talk 15:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they were confused when they stated that. Just as skills are going to be rebalanced (GW1 skills are changed in one year, imagine how much they are going to change the GW2 ones), the UI is definitely going to be changed. The UI for GW1 was one of the last things to be finalized, being changed by the time of the last Beta Weekend Event; it would also be extremely unprofessional from ArenaNet to keep important parts of information such as energy and casting time out of something easily accessible like the skill description. Erasculio 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Energy is mentioned, but the mechanics behind Energy changed. We cannot document energy cost in clear numbers. The description states a value, this is true. However, the value changes based on tier and level. So, unless we're going javascripting, we cannot display a direct value for energy cost. Casting time might be left out, I've never seen it mentioned so far. - Infinite - talk 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We will probably have to settle for the percentages for energy cost. I would expect the game to display the exact value, though. Erasculio 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it does display the cost, but it's not a fixed amount. It can be 50 energy on level 10, compared to 52 on level 11. But then it might have Tier 2 at level 11, costing 64 energy all of a sudden. The insight we have on energy is little to none. - Infinite - talk 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) From what is the safest to presume so far, the energy cost percentages are (or at least were in the demo) constant between the tiers: on the energy research page, you can see that Locust Swarm and Rigor Mortis on levels 10 and 47/48 cost the same percentage of base energy (that is, assuming the skills are on different tiers on those levels) and, when changing skills in-game there is no tier choice, which would be required if the cost was increasing. I know these arguments are rather weak, but unless someone asks ANet on Twitter, we pretty much have to presume (and change in the future if necessary).
I would probably rather remove the area of effect -- not only is it not so important a fact to be put in the infobox (imho), but it will surely be stated in the descriptions; moreover, there will be more details about it there, for instance simply writing that Phoenix is ground targeted AoE is quite misleading, because it also hits everyone in between. So, I would put in that lower left corner activation type (channeled/charge) and skill function group (signet/trap...). If there is no known function group name for a skill, I would probably put in simply Skill (quite like in GW1, although there was everything explicitly written in-game), either as a link (Skill) or greyed out (Skill). That is, if we don't have a better idea now, and changeable when we find out more. 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about the research; no one knows the tiers of the skills we've studied. - Infinite - talk 21:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-reattempt

(Reset indent) Looking back on it, I think colour-themed skill infoboxes are a bad idea, as they are; 1) not consistent amongst all skills (due to multiple professions), 2) making your eyes adjust too often if you inter-profession skill browse a lot, 3) not a better alternative to tango icons, and some other reasons that can take a while to formulate.

I also object on using the old design now that we do have tango icons; the tango icons are very nice, but are generally more "apparent" than the GW1 tangos. Also, as per many comments above, I find the classic style infobox too boring and blocky and I believe we have all the capabilities of making them more lively, yet formal and consistent. After all, there's a skill icon in there, with plans for energy cost, activation time, recharge, etc, etc. It is a infobox that is -compared to other infoboxes- very image-heavy and should get a design that compliments all images used, or get an alternate design that is less image-heavy. Also, avoiding of as much white space as possible in these boxes would add to the looks and visual effect of them.

With a new demo coming up, it is really high time we get to a conclusion on these discussions. It would be bad for the wiki's official status if we end up not having an infobox for skills any time soon. I believe fan-wikis are way ahead of us in this aspect, actually.

We should list all objections to every design interjected since the start and see what we can strike off as "trivial" and what as "absolute" about them and come up with a medium on which we should base our consensus. The longer we wait, the more proposals there will be and the further we drift from any possible consensus. - Infinite - talk 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)