Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Description templates

13»

Comments

  • kangaxxkangaxx Member Posts: 681
    I like @Tanthalas' suggestion 'Longtooth the Grave Binder'.

    AndreaColombo
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    What about "Short Sword of backstabbing, The Shadow's Blade"? Shall we remove everything except "The Shadow's Blade"? Unless it has undocumented abilities, it is just a short sword +3.

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    There's also the option of using the title:

    "Short Sword of Backstabbing"

    And then start the description with

    The Short Sword of Backstabbing, also known as The Shadow's Blade, blah, blah, blah. Though I prefer the name The Shadow's Blade.

  • kangaxxkangaxx Member Posts: 681
    @Tanthalas Yes that might be better considering the size of the tooltip. How many characters will appear at a max?

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    We'll need someone from Overhaul to answer that, but it shouldn't be a problem since long names should wrap around and appear in two lines (though Short Sword of Backstabbing: The Shadow's Blade is probably pushing it).

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    kangaxx said:

    How many characters will appear at a max?

    @CameronTofer?

    I'm really torn about these items (another example being the longbow of marksmanship, also known as Dead Shot): on the one hand, I would want to use their proper name; on the other, most long time gamers are used to the other title and might be confused by the change...

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    I don't think they'll be confused, but they may not like it (but that's the risk you take when changing anything).

  • kangaxxkangaxx Member Posts: 681
    edited August 2012
    As for the description, I suggest to put the second name first without embedding it with words:

    The Whistling Sword

    [...]

    STATISTICS:

    THAC0: +2
    Damage: 1d6+2 (piercing)
    Speed Factor: 1
    Proficiency Type: Short Sword
    Type: One-handed

    Weight: 2

  • kangaxxkangaxx Member Posts: 681
    For Longtooth it would look like this:

    Title
    Longtooth
    Description
    Grave Binder

    Discovered relatively recently by adventurers in the south, the abilities of this weapon went unknown for several years. Magical tomes eventually revealed its extensive history as an assassin's tool, and it was dubbed the Grave Binder. It was stolen soon after.

    STATISTICS:

    THAC0: +2
    Damage: 1d6+2 (piercing)
    Speed Factor: 0
    Proficiency Type: Dagger
    Type: One-handed

    Weight: 2

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    edited August 2012
    Using one name for the tooltip and one for the item's description can be confusing, as it'd likely have players wonder, "What is this, then? Longtooth or Grave Binder? The tooltip must be off or something."

    From where I'm standing, our options are as follows:
    • Ditch one of the two names.
      Easy choice when it comes to the short sword of backstabbing or the longbow of markmanship (we'd keep the proper names and ditch the descriptive ones); not so easy with Longtooth/Grave Binder. I'm not a fan of this solution because it would imply killing part of the original/intended content.
    • We use one name in the tooltip, both in the description.
      My preferred solution. It would keep all the content, make the tooltip shorter and accurate (item's proper name) and still identify the item as what old gamers know it as (e.g. longbow of marksmanship). For example, the tooltip would be "Dead Shot", and the description would start with "Longbow of marksmanship: Dead Shot".
    What say you?

    As for separating the items' names from the subsequent text, I've been making the flavor text start off a new line in all items I've fixed so far. However, I haven't added a further empty line between the name and the text. I can do that, but it would take away time I'd rather dedicate to fixing descriptions. If you'd like me to do it nonetheless, I'll make a note and take care of it once everything else is done (but for now I'll just make the description start off a new line).

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    I think "Longtooth the Grave Binder" or "Longtooth: Grave Binder" is small enough to work.

  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    edited August 2012
    Have templates for spell descriptions already been discussed? I always thought that the "Save" field at the top of the spell description should include the save type and modifier, in addition to its effect on the spell. Something like

    Save: - 2 vs. Death, negates

    or

    Save: + 4 vs. Spells, special

    Where the counter-intuitive baldur's gate convention applies that -2 is a save penalty on the creature, such that it must roll 2 greater than it's normal Death save, and + 4 makes it easier for to save vs. Spells, etc.

  • kangaxxkangaxx Member Posts: 681


    We use one name in the tooltip, both in the description.

    I agree.

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    All right, so it's going to be the item's proper name in the tooltip and both names in the description. Longtooth is a special case as it appears to have two proper names; I'll go for "Longtooth: Grave Binder" for both description and tooltip.

    @agris - there is a template for spells in the OP. If the majority (which, in the case of this thread, is basically only @kangaxx and @Tanthalas) agrees with your proposal, I will apply it.

  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    edited September 2012
    @AndreaColombo @kangaxx @Tanthalas

    I'll do this correctly then, what I propose is:
    :: SPELLS ::

    (School)

    Sphere: Animal // Charm // Combat // Creation // Divination // Elemental (Fire/Earth/Air/Water) // Guardian // Healing // Necromantic // Plant // Protection // Summoning // Sun // Weather
    Range: X-ft. radius // X yds. // Touch // Unlimited // Special
    Duration: X Increment/level // X Increment1 + Y Increment2/level // Permanent // Instantaneous // Special
    Casting Time: X
    Area of Effect: Line of sight, max X ft. // The caster // Person touched // X creature // Special
    Saving Throw: vs. Save, Result (Negate, 1/2, special) // +/-X vs. Save, Result // None // Special
    I think that makes spell saves easier to understand at a glance. I don't see any way around making the spell effect itself several sentences, and I wouldn't want to change it, but it would be nice if the save type and result were clearly defined in the header (where possible).

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    Let's talk cursed items. They are pretty much unique by definition, e.g. there is one Ring of Folly, not several. Hence, I would consider "Ring of Folly" to be some kind of proper name. However, these items also appear to have another proper name in the text (for example, the Ring of Folly is called Discipliner). I would keep both in the item's description, as we've already agreed to do for all other unique items, but what about the tooltip? Shall we use both names (keep in mind that not all of them are as short as "Ring of Folly: Discipliner")? Shall we maintain the status quo for the sake of familiarity and tradition (e.g. the tooltip is just "Ring of Folly")? Or shall we do what we're doing with other legendary items and apply the Discipliner name to the tooltip, ditching the other?

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    @Aedan notified me that the "Level" header was missing from the spells' description template. It was of course an oversight on my part (or maybe I took it for granted). I've just edited the template to include it. I confide everyone has kept the header in their translations, as I've kept it in the original English text.

    Please notice that not all spells in the English document have been proofread and fixed yet, and nor are most items from 1PP. I will get to them in the near future, as soon as I can. Please do modify them in your translations if you're applying the template- it is not necessary to wait for me.

    Regarding cursed items, @Dave and I decided to use their proper name in tooltips and keep both names in descriptions as with every other item. Hopefully the change will be welcome. Bear in mind that the vast majority of the tooltips haven't been fixed yet; in order to do that, I need a tool that tells me which header belongs to which description, which I hope the devs will provide me when they have the time (most likely after 18th September).

  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    Humm... so it sounds like crunch time means the "Save" field isn't getting updated?

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    @agris - I have nothing against the update, but I would like to hear other people's opinion first (starting from @Dave's). I'll also summon @Aedan, @christof, @Manuel, @Kangaxx and @La_Voix.

  • christofchristof Member Posts: 224
    @agris' template (plus Level) seems alright

  • La_VoixLa_Voix Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 772
    christof said:

    @agris' template (plus Level) seems alright

    Agreed.

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,326
    I'll tag @Demivrgvs too about this, given his expertise with standardization of templates :)

  • DemivrgvsDemivrgvs Member Posts: 315
    edited September 2012
    Ehm, I'm a little overwhelmed by the sheer amount of things discussed here. @AndreaColombo, am I summoned for something in particular? :D

    In the meanwhile I'll try to give my 2cents on a couple of things.

    WEAPON DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE
    It's easy to know what's my opinion on this matter, just look at what I did within Item Revisions. My only two doubts looking at what has been suggested for BGEE are:
    1) why all the "- effect_description"? The "-" seems kinda unnecessary, isn't it?
    2) Are you guys suggesting to remove the +X from the 'Identified Name' entry? If yes I'll explain you why I'm strongly against it.

    "DOUBLE NAMES"
    If you ask me, just pick one unique name and either forget about the other or mention it in the description as @Tanthalas said (e.g. The SSoB, also known as the Shadow Blade bla bla).

    On a side note, within IR I obviously have more "liberty" to change things, but I indeed agree certain items were indeed in need of a new name. For example as some of you suggested IR renamed the cursed 2handed sword into 'Cursed Berserking Sword', and in the upcoming IR V3.1 (hopefully compatible with BGEE) I think I'll change it into 'Berserking Greatsword'. Either solutions are surely hugely better than vanilla's 'Two Handed Sword Cursed Berserking' which is kinda silly.

    Items such as 'War Hammer +1, +4 vs Giant Humanoids' really needs a name imo. Within IR I had not such a problem because I heavily changed them, but for example you could easily change it into 'Giantbane', 'Gian Feller' or something like that.

    SPELL DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE
    Again, it's easy to guess what I'd like to see here. Within Spell Revisions I indeed made the 'Saving Throw' line more clear by adding the 'save type' and the expected result on a successful save (e.g. negates, partial, special, half damage), but I would suggest you to not add the +/- bonus/penalty to the save in that line. Doing so will overcomplicate your life for a modest goal. What about spells such as Spook with increasing save penalties?

    AndreaColombo
  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    @Demivrgvs

    That's an interesting point about the sliding save values, but would you agree that spells following such behavior are in the minority? Anyway, that's the point of the "Special" identifier, for behavior that is too complex to summarize in a line. I don't see how listing the +/- would excessively complicate anything.

Sign In or Register to comment.