Talk:Formatting Guide

Suggest that this page could be moved to "Wiki Style Guide", which I think is the more common name for it. Croald (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2019 (PST)

Style
A standard format for damage formulas should be adopted. At present, there are several different markup approaches in use (also using a mix of single-line vs. multiple lines (for Damage:, Shred:, etc.):

• No format: (AoE 2.1 radius, Pot+2d3 damage, Pot/2+1 shred, Pot/2 pierce, 4.6 range from either Wood) Elementalist#Splintersalvo
• Code format: Potency+Spell Damage Humanist#Metal
• Preformatted:

Damage: (2 to 6) + (Potency + Spell Damage)
Shred: 1 + 1/2(Potency + Spell Damage)

Consistency

• 1/2(Bonus Damage + Potency) vs. (Bonus Damage + Potency)/2 vs. ½(Bonus Damage + Potency). The tooltips use the first; the other two may be more difficult to read and/or parse.
• (Potency + Spell Damage + 1) vs. (Potency+Spell Damage+1). Whitespace makes the first more readable.
• (Potency + Spell Damage) vs. (Pot + Spell Damage). Unnecessary abbreviations are more difficult to parse. We should spell it out so it's not ambiguous or confusing.
• (2 to 6) vs. 2d3. The tooltips use the first; the other requires the reader to be familiar with dice notation.

Descriptions In-game descriptions may differ between base and upgraded/+ abilities, so two separate descriptions should probably be provided. E.g.,

Tools sharpen their heads and throw themselves into a horrific frenzy, rending targets in a nearby area with a 50% chance of stunning on hit.

Tools sharpen their heads and throw themselves into a horrific frenzy, rending targets in a nearby area with a 100% chance of stunning on hit.

Grouping descriptions and damage
At present, base and upgraded damage are grouped together. It might improve readability if there was a base section (with its description and damage), followed by an upgraded/+ section (with its description and damage). See User:FeralKitty/Broadswipes for one example of this.

FeralKitty (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2021 (PDT)