Talk:Status effects

Should we keep the seperate pages that were created back when we had individual pages for these kinds of things? (example: the Blind article) --spudwalt 06:39, 10 May 2013 (CEST)

I think so. The sheer massiveness of this page means we're trying to keep the descriptions pretty brief, but the details of each status effect should be available SOMEWHERE on the site. Individual pages make sense to me. --MoogleDan 08:01, 10 May 2013 (CEST)

new 0.13a status effect DRAIN

A Zot trap summoned Soul eater in 0.13a/trunk inflicted an formerly unknown status effect DRAIN to my octopode. Add & crystal ball cat? -- Bwijn 14:09, 28 July 2013 (CEST)

Temporary (reversed by gaining XP) skill drain now replaces the old permanent XP drain that draining attacks used to cause. I can write it up in the next couple days, though one of the more current players around here may also wish to do so. -Ion frigate 21:20, 28 July 2013 (CEST)

I try not to repeat information TOO often on here, especially for features that won't be official for some time, but draining deserves a warning and status effects already had a History section for it to be added into. Done! --MoogleDan 14:16, 29 July 2013 (CEST)

This article

This is starting to look like the old List of unrands article: just too large to be that useful, vulnerable to broken redirects, and generally, let's face it, kind of ugly. So here's how I propose to reorganize it:

• Don't describe the status effects here. Just link to the articles they're relevant to, and be sure to mention the status light on said articles.
• An idea I have might be to make this a great big chart. The status lights would be in the leftmost column in alphabetical order, the next column would be 1-3 word description (i.e. "Powered by death" for Regen+), and the other columns would be to indicate how that status effect can arise: spell, god, potion, mutation, etc. For example, the Fast status effect would have as its second column "Haste", and then an X in the columns for spell, potion, wand. These X's would in fact be links to the Haste, potion of speed, and wand of hasting. Do people like this idea? I think it would be more compact and readable.

Anyway, one way or another, I think this article really does need to be changed - things like this have a tendency not to get updated, because no one wants to go through and manually read through every status to find obsolete/changed ones. Inaccuracies had a tendency to persist in the old unrands article. -Ion frigate (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2013 (CEST)

Losing the status effect descriptions would be fine, but only if we have pages for all of them, and with a consistent naming convention preferably based on what someone playing the game is actually going to see (Fast for haste, Sil for silence, etc.); I wanted the site to have a comprehensive collection of every status modifier a player might encounter over the course of the game, complete with at least some explanation of what it means, and while it definitely got way out of hand, this page seemed like the fastest satisfactory approach. As for the great big chart, I'm not sure that'd be necessary if every status effect did have its own page; that way, players could look up what they need and see detailed information on each effect (which specific spell/god ability causes the effect, which monsters inflict this with the attack, and so on). Honestly, if we're going to overhaul this page, I'd say we should just reduce it to a Category after pulling each status effect out to its own entry. --MoogleDan (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2013 (CEST)

From a reader's point of view, I don't think someone is going to sit and read about all the possible status effects available in the game. The reader just wants info on the particular status effect that interests them. In this case single articles make more sense.

From an editor's point of view I think IonFrigate has good arguments that keeping track of changes will be easier for individual articles. The changed List of unrands looks much better now. Reducing Status effects the same way into a list would have my vote. --Flun (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2013 (CEST)

I like the chart idea. --spudwalt (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (CEST)