Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-27802145-20191204001233

Not much text, mostly ability descriptions, but TL;DR at bottom.

Furthering from my previous post, I've come to notice as of late further inconsistencies in ability descriptions, mainly involving the usage of Keywords. Keywords are things such as, but not limited to, ability specific mechanics, and ability specific buffs. For example, here is a copy of Ekko's current passive.

Note the uses of Resonance, Stolen Time, and Stabilized.

Now compare that to a more classical format which still does use Keywords.

Note the uses of Ravenous and Flock, and how they're both preceded by Innate.

Furthering on from this is the uses of Keywords in the Active statement of abilities, such as the following.

Note the use of Broken Timeline after Active. To my knowledge, this is the only ability to utilize this format, but it wouldn't surprise me at this point if there are more.

An alternative utilization of Keywords is also for the simplification of (writing) ability descriptions. However sometimes this method can become rater counterproductive, specifically in cases where the uses of Keywords are either redundant or harmful.

Note the differences between the two ability descriptions below, primarily on how Demon Shade is a Keyword meant to describe a buff given post-condition, versus how Primed is a Keyword that is not very conditional, but rather sequential to the first part of Phase Dive.

Originally, Ekko's Phase Dive used to describe how he would gain the secondary effects of the ability proceeding the dash, rather than listing Primed Keyword. I believe this to be a case of redundancy, whereas Demon Shade is not in contrast, due to it being conditional.

Both of these Keywords are buffs with the corresponding in-game names as far as I know, so the question here is how should we proceed with the use of Keywords?

My proposal is that for Keywords (and TL;DR):
 * For champion passives we utilize the classical format (Keywords preceded by Innate, like Swain's Ravenous Flock; every separate effect is to be preceded by Innate, which isn't the case for some multi-effect passives at the moment, like Senna's)
 * For Active statements we do not utilize them (Keywords are never to be used proceeding like how it is done with Ekko's Chronobreak).
 * For conditional buffs we do utilize them. For sequential buffs we do not utilize them (damage dealt, no damage taken, sweet spot, etc conditional, vs. sequential or flavour). For iffy instances, we are to be sensible, understanding, and willing to compromise with each other's edits. An ability striking something is not conditional, it is how abilities are able to even begin interacting with an entity.

Cons of my proposals for each of my points above respectively:
 * Can get wordy with the multiple uses of Innate.
 * Deprives flavour.
 * Requires maintenance and peer review for consistency.

Personally I don't see the point in the use of Keywords at all other than flavour (which should be second to efficient delivery of information), but by now there's probably been too much work put into this by many people to wipe it all out. Sunk cost fallacy, whatever. Maybe it could even be argued that putting names on them makes them more identifiable/recognizable (probably bs).

 