It seems to follow Probability of Removal under “Status Ailment Duration and Cure Rates”
Topic on Talk:Poison and Pain setting/Pain
From Another Eden Wiki
It was good to double-check, on such a popular character. Usually when the duration is not explicitly mentioned, it is what I am calling here the "unreliable" type, where it can be useful in the same turn (like for a 1T(no)AF) but then can go away. It can get harder to tell though, when the text is conjoined to another skill that may be fixed-duration, and thus ambiguous whether the turn duration should extend to it or not.
Similarly, when the chance of infliction is not explicitly mentioned, it is ~70-80%, which personally I find not worth doing, but some people seem to swear that they can make use of it (even though their clear then depends on RNG), especially on a multi-hitter with chances calculated independently.
And that is why this resource can enable multiple people to do things however they want! Or at least I had hoped that the single large table approach would have worked, but now due to template size limitations it will have to be 6 tables again, oh well:-(.
First in regard of applying statuses in skills, WFS is really simple:
- If there is turns duration - they put it in skill description in-game, because its special and non-standard.
- If there is ignore res - they put in in skill descriptions in-game, because its special and non-standard.
There are no exceptions to this for skills, as of now in-game. So there is nothing hard to already have it correct on pages.
Second is: double checking is nice and all, and you can do that on the fly without even touching wiki edits until you actually found something wrong. But mind you that you are double checking after other 5 other editors who for more than half year already tried to put correct info there and double/tipple/5x checked it. And that big part of "multiple people doing things however they want resource" is that others will have to double-check your edits too, because "however they want" isn't always systematical and even correct. Which is exactly what happened with "(not ignore resistance)" part and its fine, you didn't see bigger picture, i then corrected it.
But when you are putting an icon into description, just do it, there isn't really need to use edit comments to provoke someone else to check duration or to provoke to check anything else you cant check or you don't want to check, then use me/someone to check your edits, and then even these discussions about all this. Basically if you don't have new info, please just don't edit anything into pages/comments that store actual info.
(1) I apologize for introducing that to Rip and Tear - fwiw after thinking about it more I do agree that you are correct there. You are ignoring a ton of context though, such as how SEVERAL other skills use that identical terminology, e.g. just two days prior to editing Rip and Tear I had edited https://anothereden.wiki/index.php?title=Demonic_Thrust_(2)&diff=prev&oldid=280269 where someone else (I see it was Josephinejoe on January 6 2022), had put in the language "(not guaranteed)", wrt to P/P, and I only changed it to "(does not ignore enemy resistance)" rather than removed it entirely as you are saying should have been done (then incorrectly started to propagate that language to Rip and Tear). This is by no means an isolated example - there are several others e.g. Kaleido Thrust where again Josephinejoe on 6 January 2022 introduced that wording "not guaranteed". I see that you even edited VL's skill since then and did not remove that language there? These skill descriptions are in no way consistent currently, and we all seem to just get used to the cacophony - particularly people see different patterns depending on where they look in different places, and get confused as to which "standard" should be upheld? I have tried to help introduce more strict standardization from the get-go with barrier piercing, but have not done as much with the much older P/P. Hopefully this very page will help with that. Maybe you want to write a note in the outro even saying what terminology people should follow when making skill descriptions in the future? But it is not just me doing this, somehow in opposition to the entire wiki.
(2) Other administrators, especially Bamiji, even disagree with you - e.g. Deirdre's evaluation description says "Can inflict guaranteed Pain on all enemies, but without a fixed duration." -> this is not talking about crits nor stat debuffs nor even another form of status but rather exactly Pain, and thus it is misleading imho, b/c that is not guaranteed these days now that status immunity barriers are a thing. But I cannot edit that one, so I will have to leave the situation to you to do or not as you choose. Either way, do you see how Bamiji calling something "guaranteed" might lead others to use that same language? (in the positive sense even, and since April 2021 even for just that one char so at least 2 years now! plus others even older that that such as Jade) iirc I had not even beaten Main Story part 1 by that time yet - so this was definitely not me who introduced that terminology!
(3) Other characters, such as Serge's Shining skill, also had the word "guarantee" written directly into them, even in the positive sense. I changed several of those earlier in the week, but again I cannot change the ratings descriptions - we are all waiting to follow your lead there, but we can only help with the parts we are allowed to edit, and if your directions differ from Bamiji's, it will remain confusing to everyone.
Void's comment on Rip and Tear: why special treatment, its not anything non-standard in the first place, or at least not rarer persistent that might need this explantion. Standard is described on status effects page
VL's pain is persistent. No contradiction there.
Context is not something that you can get from second-guessing edit comments or edits, so here's some context that you missed: VL's Demonic Thrust was at a time when people were still conflating ignore target resistance with persistent. There is a reason it was there. It's not strictly necessary, not so even back then, but it was there to help people in that time context. It wasn't and still isn't wrong, so it's definitely not a change to be prioritized. And as far as I've seen, there's been no complaints thus far before you. If you want to remove it, go ahead.
Also, if you know formal logic, saying "guaranteed is wrong" does not imply "not guaranteed is wrong" (and in the state of the game now, saying "not guaranteed" isn't wrong).
Guaranteed is easier to understand than ignore target resistance imo. It was fine then, but unfortunately it's not a term we really ought to use now in new edits.
Go put a comment on Deirdre and Serge's page if you're so concerned, there's no need to editorialize it or ask Void to do it for you. I don't think Void or Bamiji is so free to manually look through the thousands of wiki pages every time WFS makes a change.
If you want to scour the whole wiki to enforce consistency or something, or write theses about standards or guidelines, be my guest, it's not my wiki. Just remember to do it again and again when WFS makes some change to the system or introduces edge cases, as WFS has done many, many times over the years. I take it that the I and the rest of the community can hold you responsible if you miss out on something?
While you're at it, you can go standardize the use of persistent and permanent in the wiki too.
Actually 12ezsqra, I have been doing just that, in MANY cases. There is no need to trust me - my contributions log says it for anyone who cares to look. Nor am I alone - Bluezero, Someweirdo237, Jamrocksojen, Gadjiltron, and so very MANY others tirelessly edit the wiki, so that administrators such as Voiddp and Bamiji do not have to do literally all of the work themselves (they do a great deal of it though).
Except for the ratings pages - those we do not touch, and cannot touch. We cannot help there, because we are not allowed. As long as that remains true, then yes, I cited Bamiji as the reason why they have not been edited... b/c that is a true statement? Maybe Bluezero as a new administrator can help there, or Someweirdo237, or dreicunan, or someone else who would be trusted enough to be given permissions to do that -> but so long as those descriptions remain locked, then yes I did say that an administrator would have to be the one to change them, IF we agreed that they should be changed, b/c that is just how it is. That was the choice that the administrators made -> and at any time they can either continue with that, or alter it. (and yes, if I were to lock something so that ONLY I COULD EDIT IT, and then walk away and leave it unchanged, you could then hold me responsible for that fact too)
There is no need to standardize permanent/persistent, as there are no automated queries that use that language, and even if there were it is fine to simply use both words. If that changes, then rest assured I will change every last skill on the wiki so that whatever query is written properly pulls up all instances - I have done this several times already, e.g. most recently for Barrier Piercing, and I will continue to offer to do it again, when there is an actual need to do so.
Please note that there is no need to turn this into a toxic fight - my comments were not out of the blue criticisms against Bamiji, but specifically in response to Voiddp's comments, some of which you would not see if you only read what is immediately above you here (some in other Talk discussions, some in comment change descriptions). I am not attacking Voiddp, I am not attacking Bamiji for no reason, just trying to see how to move forward.
And you missed several nuances there - e.g. I did not say that "not guaranteed is wrong". I did change that language on some skills even when those used it in the negative sense (of "not guaranteed") b/c it seems to be tempting some people to then switch it around and use it in the positive sense (such as Vivilerie who was the first to add that language to a predecessor of this page, and then Bluezero continued it, I suspect in part b/c Bamiji also uses that very language in the ratings). Also, I did say that using it in the positive sense is incorrect - b/c when you use a skill that is said to be "guaranteed" to set Pain, and then there is no Pain on the enemy (b/c of barriers), that gets closer to "wrong", or the word that I chose to use rather was "misleading" - as in it describes one aspect of the game but only in isolation of all others (which tbf, as you said, did not really exist at the time that language was written, outside of some extremely rare exceptional instances... and yet it does now, so why should the language written years ago be enshrined in stone forever, on a wiki that can be easily edited to keep up with the game, by people who are offering to do exactly that?).
