(→Discussion: two cents) |
No edit summary |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{Ability|I |
{{Ability|I |
||
|name = Eternal Thirst |
|name = Eternal Thirst |
||
| − | |icon = Eternal Thirst. |
+ | |icon = Eternal Thirst.png |
| − | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal {{ |
+ | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal {{pp|3;3.5;4;4.5;5;5.5;6;6.5;7;8;9;10;11;12;13;14;15;16}} additional magic damage and heal him for the same amount. Each successive attack against the same target will stack this amount of healing and damage up to a maximum of 3 stacks. The stacks remain for 4 seconds. |
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{Ability|I |
{{Ability|I |
||
|name = Eternal Thirst |
|name = Eternal Thirst |
||
| − | |icon = Eternal Thirst. |
+ | |icon = Eternal Thirst.png |
| − | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal 2.5{{plus}}({{pp |
+ | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal 2.5{{plus}}({{pp|0.5;1|1>9;10>18}} at each level) additional magic damage and heal him for the same amount. Each successive attack against the same target will stack this amount of healing and damage up to a maximum of 3 stacks. The stacks remain for 4 seconds. |
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
{{Ability|I |
{{Ability|I |
||
|name = Eternal Thirst |
|name = Eternal Thirst |
||
| − | |icon = Eternal Thirst. |
+ | |icon = Eternal Thirst.png |
| − | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal 2.5{{plus}}({{tt|0.5|Applies |
+ | |description = Each of Warwick's autoattacks deal 2.5{{plus}}({{tt|0.5|Applies for levels 1 to 9. Damage is 7 at level 9.}} / {{tt|1|Applies for levels 10 to 18. Damage is 16 at level 18.}} at {{tt|each level|Damage is 3 at level 1 and 16 at level 18.}}) additional magic damage and heal him for the same amount. Each successive attack against the same target will stack this amount of healing and damage up to a maximum of 3 stacks. The stacks remain for 4 seconds. |
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
==Discussion== |
==Discussion== |
||
| − | Iirc, Sona being one of the most notable offenders, regressing the values into a formula makes it extremely messy. i.e. {{ais|Power Chord}} damage: {{pp |
+ | Iirc, Sona being one of the most notable offenders, regressing the values into a formula sometimes makes it extremely messy. i.e. {{ais|Power Chord|Sona}} damage: {{pp|6;3;7;-12;-78|1>3;4>5;6;7>14;15>18}} + ({{pp|7;8;9;10;15|1>3;4>5;6;7>14;15>18}} x Level) {{as|(+ 20% AP)}} |
| − | I'd say use rule of thumb on a case by case basis to determine if the damage is suitable to be presented as values by itself, or if it can be regressed neatly. |
+ | I'd say use rule of thumb on a case by case basis to determine if the damage is suitable to be presented as values by itself, or if it can be regressed neatly. {{User:LionsLight/sig}} 00:38, January 2, 2014 (UTC) |
| + | :That's actually the wrong formula. :P The formula I mentioned above maintains the base at the same value, but indicates the change per level as dependent on the level bracket itself. In this manner, the base amount doesn't have to be readjusted all the time, particularly as it would have to be readjusted every level as the gain per level increases. For Sona the non-linear scaling formula gives the following: |
||
| + | |||
| + | {{Ability|I |
||
| + | |name = Power Chord |
||
| + | |icon = Power Chord.png |
||
| + | |description = After 3 ability casts, Sona's next basic attack will deal 6{{plus}}({{tt|7|Applies for levels 1 to 3. Damage is 27 at level 3.}} / {{tt|8|Applies for levels 4 to 5. Damage is 43 at level 5.}} / {{tt|9|Applies for level 6. Damage is 52 at level 6.}} / {{tt|10|Applies for levels 7 to 14. Damage is 132 at level 14.}} / {{tt|15|Applies for levels 15 to 18. Damage is 192 at level 18.}} at {{tt|each level|Damage is 13 at level 1 and 192 at level 18.}}) {{as|(+ 20% AP)}} bonus magic damage, with an additional effect depending on the last basic ability cast. |
||
| + | }} |
||
| + | |||
| + | This condenses the mess somewhat, but also makes calculations a bit easier: if you want to calculate the damage value within a certain level bracket, you look at the previous bracket, which gives the maximum value within that bracket, and add the new value times the remaining amount of levels. For example, suppose you want to know how much damage {{ai|Power Chord|Sona}} deals at level 16. 16 is within the 15-18 bracket, i.e. the last one, so you look at the previous bracket, which says the passive's damage at level 14 is 132. To this, you simply add 15 twice, and get 162. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 00:57, January 2, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Not sure if I'm a fan of that method because what it does is hide the base damage away in a tooltip, and misleads forces people to recalculate damage only after looking at th tooltip. You're making readers work for their information, essentially. I'm not sure if visitors using android devices can even read tooltips as well. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb1366976924/common/avatars/thumb/e/ee/1445357.png/20px-1445357.png [[User:LionsLight|LionsLight]]<sub>([[User_talk:LionsLight|talk]])</sub> 01:16, January 2, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :If Android users cannot read tooltips then this may create readability issues for them. I don't own an Android device, and so can't say for sure, but it'd be great for people with those to check how visible this format is.<br />On making readers work for their information, it would be worth comparing how much work they'd have to put with the above format compared to the existing one. The problem with the current version is that it's a very long string of numbers, which makes it hard to locate any particular value. Unlike the above, it also gives no indication as to how the ability evolves in power over the game, which also forces them to work for their information (and pretty hard, too, considering you'd need to extrapolate a non-linear function from a sequence of numbers). Putting aside the tooltip, the above description would actually make it easier to calculate the damage values than even for linear passives, as it gives you a higher base amount to work with.<br />If packing the information into the tooltip becomes a problem, though, it would then be best to find a way to put it in a concise manner within the description itself. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 01:47, January 2, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::Surely having a massive list (or not putting it) would be equally disruptive for them to read? On another wiki I used to edit we used a js thing to create a popup to read that hover-over text, IDK if android users would see that. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] <small>([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 02:11, January 9, 2014 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 10:33, 1 September 2021
The Problem
There needs to be some kind of an update to how we describe non-linear passives on champions. More specifically, this applies to 
Diana, 
Sona, 
Warwick and 
Ziggs's articles, where their passives all have damage that scales non-linearly with level, i.e. the formula cannot be resumed to a simple X + Y per level. This has the unfortunate consequence of leaving instead a long string of numbers, which is ugly and unhelpful in conveying how the ability evolves over time. Consider the following:
The numbers alone take up an entire line, about a third of the ability's description. What the list should be telling us is that the damage gain per level rises at level 9 from 0.5 per level to 1 per level, but this is not immediately visible. It's also hard to see at a glance that the gain per level only changes once: Diana's passive, 
Moonsilver Blade, changes scaling four times, Sona's four times as well, and Ziggs's three times, all at different levels. Despite having the numbers spread out on a list, it's hard to see how the passive increases in power.
There was a change to this format I first saw on Ziggs's article, which I then copied to the others. On Warwick, it gave this:
This shortens the formula quite a bit, but is not actually a good solution either. The problem with this kind of indication is that it's misleading: people who don't know that the first value applies to all levels from 1 to 9 and the second value to levels 10 to 18 might make the wrong calculation on the passive's damage, as there is no indication to the proper formula.
Possible Solution
I think there should be a way to combine the conciseness of the second formula with the exhaustiveness of the first. There are a few ways this could be improved on:
- Clarify in the tooltip which values apply to which values (i.e. "Value applies at levels X through Y" instead of just "X-Y").
- Either give the full list of values under "at each level", or:
- Give the value at the highest level in each bracket in each tooltip (i.e. "Value applies at levels X through Y, value at level Y is Z"), and create a tooltip under "at each level" indicating the values at level 1 and level 18.
These changes should clarify to newcomers how the nonlinear scaling formula, and indicating the values at the endpoints in the tooltips would make calculations far easier. I am personally more in favor of option 3 over option 2, as the end value makes it easier to calculate the scaling in the next bracket, whereas the indication of the damage's endpoint values would give an idea of how powerful the ability is. To go back to Warwick, an example of options 1 and 3 combined would be the following:
What are your thoughts?
Discussion
Iirc, Sona being one of the most notable offenders, regressing the values into a formula sometimes makes it extremely messy. i.e. 
Power Chord's damage: 6 / 3 / 7 / -12 / -78 (based on level) + (7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 15 (based on level) x Level) (+ 20% AP)
I'd say use rule of thumb on a case by case basis to determine if the damage is suitable to be presented as values by itself, or if it can be regressed neatly. 
LionsLight(talk) 00:38, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- That's actually the wrong formula. :P The formula I mentioned above maintains the base at the same value, but indicates the change per level as dependent on the level bracket itself. In this manner, the base amount doesn't have to be readjusted all the time, particularly as it would have to be readjusted every level as the gain per level increases. For Sona the non-linear scaling formula gives the following:
This condenses the mess somewhat, but also makes calculations a bit easier: if you want to calculate the damage value within a certain level bracket, you look at the previous bracket, which gives the maximum value within that bracket, and add the new value times the remaining amount of levels. For example, suppose you want to know how much damage Power Chord deals at level 16. 16 is within the 15-18 bracket, i.e. the last one, so you look at the previous bracket, which says the passive's damage at level 14 is 132. To this, you simply add 15 twice, and get 162. --Willbachbakal (talk) 00:57, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm a fan of that method because what it does is hide the base damage away in a tooltip, and misleads forces people to recalculate damage only after looking at th tooltip. You're making readers work for their information, essentially. I'm not sure if visitors using android devices can even read tooltips as well. LionsLight(talk) 01:16, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- If Android users cannot read tooltips then this may create readability issues for them. I don't own an Android device, and so can't say for sure, but it'd be great for people with those to check how visible this format is.
On making readers work for their information, it would be worth comparing how much work they'd have to put with the above format compared to the existing one. The problem with the current version is that it's a very long string of numbers, which makes it hard to locate any particular value. Unlike the above, it also gives no indication as to how the ability evolves in power over the game, which also forces them to work for their information (and pretty hard, too, considering you'd need to extrapolate a non-linear function from a sequence of numbers). Putting aside the tooltip, the above description would actually make it easier to calculate the damage values than even for linear passives, as it gives you a higher base amount to work with.
If packing the information into the tooltip becomes a problem, though, it would then be best to find a way to put it in a concise manner within the description itself. --Willbachbakal (talk) 01:47, January 2, 2014 (UTC)