Talk:Crowd Control

From Smite Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rewrite and Categorization[edit source]

I have started to rewrite this entry on crowd control, with the intention to provide a more concise definition on what crowd control is and how it is commonly categorized (hard and soft CC) in Smite and other MOBAs. The section on countering CC (it already has a section on the Magi's Blessing item) should later be expanded to include active items and other counters as well. —Leonard McCoy (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you wish to expand a section in the wiki, but you should make sure you it's actually doing it's job. The description we had covered both CC caused by players and CC caused by units targeted to both players, and units and it also described each type of CC instead of just listing them. I would have told you to test your changes through a sandbox but I see you are already doing it on your talk page.--Malvodion (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I will further revise portions of the page in my sandbox first before making any changes to the entry on crowd control itself. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the work I did in my sandbox on this, I now went ahead and posted the major revision of this entry. Crowd control is now more concisely defined as a term. The common categorization of soft and hard CC is used, and the reader is provided with a full list of all CC effects currently in Smite including definitions and example abilities.

There is room for improvement:

  • All the god abilities causing a CC effect should probably be listed in the CC wiki entry.
  • The tables should be uniformly formatted. Currently, one of the tables is spanned over the whole width of the page.
  • Furthermore, for every CC effect, an extra wiki entry should be created listing all the god abilities that cause such an effect, plus stats. Here is an example in cripple.
  • The section on Counters need to be expanded and revised.
    • The expansive table on the CC effects that Magi's Blessing counters should be moved to that item's wiki page to make room for more text on countering CC.--Leonard McCoy (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what browser or resolution you have, but for me all those tables are squished and barely cover 200x. I'm ok with clarifiying things, but you removed a lot information that is not mentioned anywhere in page. Spreading the information from that page into several small pages is not the way to go. Also, you should try to make the page look like the rest. Right now the page looks odd (Even more that the previous one with the colored tables). And just in case: Do not take anything from other wikis. If this format or text comes from another site, please replace it for we cannot host things we haven't got permisson for.--Malvodion (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the tables. For some reason, my Chrome browser ignores, at random, specifically set table widths here. I am not aware that I have left out information from the previous revision (if so, do tell me). Quite the contrary, I have added onto the previous article and restructured it according to what MOBA readers come looking for (hard CC/ soft CC). It goes without saying that all the contents I have submitted is entirely my own or wasn't copyrighted to begin with. I am unable to incorporate the stat tables for all the effects (like root) into the main article, which is why I have separated them. If that information which I do find valuable is not wanted, give me a wink. The massive table on Magi's Blessing makes the counter section of the article, which should be expanded with other items by the way, quite unreadable. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The admin decided to revert most of the article to its former state, and rewrote parts of it himself. Much for the worse, I fear; the article is but a confused mess now. Not only do we now lose out on a more concise definition what crowd control is, but this latest rewrite also obscures where the line between soft and hard CC should be drawn. And the integration of the tabs, while a neat idea, obscures an otherwise clear overview of all the crowd controls on one page. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A confusing mess you say? How is the current description confusing? How were the descriptions you made before clear? Soft CC is not just the kind that doesn't prevent you from using spells, it's the one that reduces your ability to take certain actions but doesn't complelty block them, while Hard CC does.Wikis store older versions of the pages, so lying on this subject would be pointless.
You can't expect to come to a wiki and do whatever you want without following any kind of guidelines, nor you can try to add opinions (like what you think crowd control means, or that little commentary of there being too much CC in the game.) into pages. This is a knowledge center, not a blog.
I've been patient, I've explained everything to you, but you still try to bend things to your will instead of trying to learn. It won't work. That negative attitude won't be tolerated any longer. You can continue working on the page if you trully care to improve the resources of our community, or you can leave.--Malvodion (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't take this personal because this is about the quality of the article entirely. What crowd control is and isn't (the only differentiating factor is whether or not it channels abilities) is not exclusive to Smite; your definition of it on the other hand is entirely your own.
As an administrator, you should support wiki contributors rather than discourage them from improving, and adding onto, the contents of this wiki; never once before was I discouraged on a wiki to add new pages, or any content really, if there was enough valuable content to justify it.
The article in its current form follows no writing guidelines, definitions are vague and inconcise. It hurts me to say this, because I also put a lot of work into revising the article, but the current revision, and approach, really is convoluted and confused. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't trying to attack anyone then why would you word it like that? What were you even hoping to acomplish with such message?
That definition I added is not mine, it was mentioned on a dev stream.
I gave you information about what seemed to be wrong in your way to edit things, and I told you to try to follow the general guidelines, to look at other pages to see how they were formated.
The descriptions of each CC are vague because You said you were going to continue filling them, so I didn't (And I can' do it right now either, I was supposed to be fast asleep an hour ago.) because I was only making a base for you to continue working on, but I didn't except you would try to turn that against me (So much for not trying to cause an argument.).

See what I've been saying? There was never a conflict here, you just reacted in a negative way to me because I didn't let you do whatever you wanted even if it was for your and the wiki's good. You are the one who is actually causing troubles to yourself.--Malvodion (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand where all this is coming from. As you suggested, I prepared a rewrite proper of the original article in my sandbox before revising any further, and added onto the original article both in content and quality. Once finished, I went ahead and published the revision which got abandoned, for the most part, from the get-go. This is the kind of conflict I am talking about. I sure wish there wasn't one because every man's time is limited. If you didn't like the idea of the extra pages for each of the effects, the idea could have been dropped entirely. I just want to improve this page and not deal with any of this. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I already told you, most of that was redudant or irrelevant, and the rest was incorrect. If you actully want me to go into detail I will go to your sandbox and edit it with notes, but it it'll have to be later when I have actually rested. But belive me: I did not remove/reword/edited any of the things you added without a good reason. (You overreacted to me editing the page, which led me to react in a similar way.)
Now, if you still wish to contribute to the page, you are more that welcome to do it as long as it follows the general guidelines.--Malvodion (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we both went off on the wrong foot, and it resulted in a death spiral of misconceptions and misunderstandings. I would be grateful if you could annotate the "redundant," "irrelevant," and "incorrect" passages in my sandbox revision as I fail to see them myself. I honestly, seriously, believe it to be an upgrade over the original article in every way possible (the definition of hard CC disrupting the channeling of abilties, whereas soft CC doesn't, is correct); otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to write it all up, and fight for it still. This whole "drama" is utterly incomprehensible to me. I also wish to be referred to the "general guidelines" as I couldn't find them. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Current Revision[edit source]

By Leonard McCoy (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To list everything that is wrong with the current revision, is not my goal. Since it has been requested that I deliver my reasons why the current revision be unacceptable apart from the usage of tabs, namely in terms of writing and article quality, I would like to dissect a few bits here and there in order to make my point clear.

I do not intend to step on anybody's feet with this; this is entirely about the text. If I have been too harsh in my judgment, then it is because I care. Information on this topic being so vital to the game mechanics of Smite is rather scarce. This topic deserves proper treatment.

One last remark before we dive into the text. Had I known that I would have to go to such lengths to be able to edit, and improve upon, the text, the page should better have been set to "protected" to discourage any further editing.

I will now quote a passage here and there from the text, in chronological order, and then, methodically, comment on it (§ = paragraph).

§ 1 influence] Wrong diction: A CC is always a negative effect, and as such we can't speak about it having just a general influence.

§ 1 enemy unit] The perspective is amiss here, for enemy unit does not include the player himself. It should be taken into account that players also come here to find out about which CC hit them, and how to counter it. Be inclusive rather than exclusive! The term unit should be defined as well, for the reader cannot know intrinsically which type of characters are included (only gods? minions as well?).

§ 1 ] Then the same paragraph breaks apart talking about team fights in very general terms. There is no mention that CC can be countered as an introduction for the later part of the article perhaps.

§ 1 abilities/actions] One should put the time and effort into formulating this more appropriately.

§ 1 CC often renders an opponent nearly useless, allowing you to attack them without fear of retaliation] This statement is outright false. Depending on the kind of CC, a unit may still very well be capable of either auto-attacking or using its abilities (or both), and still be thereby a potent threat on the battlefield for the team. In general it is fine to have a paragraph on the importance of CC in team fights, why not! but then let it be done right, and not shove it like this into the very set up of the definition of the term.

§ 2 There are two main types of crowd-control effects: "Soft" and "Hard" Crowd Control, depending on whether or not the effect prevents the target from taking some kind of action] Apart from misconstrued capitalization, the definition of my revision was taking and modified for the worse here. Writing some kind of action is like writing a nondefinition, or nothing at all. There is no need to be so vague! The differentiating factor whether it be classified as a hard CC is, if the CC effect has ability-disrupting properties. More on this in the next bit below, to make it even clearer.

§ 2 This type of crowd control reduces the mobility of enemy targets but does not completly prevent them from acting in a certain way.] It is not only enemy targets, include the player. The whole sentence is convoluted, and in a certain way is needlessly vague. It is a soft CC because it has a negative effect on the unit and because it does not prevent the affected unit from channeling (= activating and/or executing) abilities.

§7 This type of crowd control completly prevents enemy targets from taking certain actions, like moving or casting abilities.] Apart from a minor spelling mistake, this definition is, again, too vague. It is a hard CC because it always prevents the affected unit from channeling abilities for the duration of the effect. Movement restriction can be a bonus of the effect but it doesn't have to be whereas the former is always the case.

I think you completly forgot the part when I told you I wasn't aiming to do your job, but just to make a base for you to work on. It's not the final thing, it was never meant to be it. The introduction is not supposed to inform of detailed things nor data found bellow (if it did, what'd be the point of the rest of the article?), it's supposed to inform the reader about what the page is about, for anyone could be reading it: Someone who never touched a MOBA in their lives to a Pro Player. Soft CC says it doesn't completly prevent you from taking actions because that covers both abilities and movement. The descriptions mentions most things as you being the caster so that the readers might have an easier time understanding what/how they Do. You really seem to be obsessed with forcing the "Not casting abilities" defition. Casting abilities is just one of the many actions you can take in the game, and not all Hard CC prevent you from using them (Intoxicate for instance, which is a Hard CC but only cripples your movement and sight).
I don't see what you were trying to accomplish with all of this. I already told you that all those changes had a reason to be. Instead of losing so much time just to keep on arguing, why don't You accept that your work might not actually be perfect (not saying mine is, but it is more fitting for the site) and used that time to actually work on expanding the page? (BTW, You don't need to get verbose with me or anyone else in the site, it makes no difference.)--Malvodion (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not want to get into any further argument with you; it leads to nothing. I merely did what I was asked to do from you, actually showing, in bits and pieces, where the article falls apart. And I can't keep on working on the article myself if my revisions keep getting reverted to the former state (wasted time). Is there a third party who could mediate in this case? A simple yes/no answer would suffice. Thanks. --Leonard McCoy (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
What is there to argue? Why can't you continue working on what's currently on the page instead? Nothing has been changed since my revision. You know exactly why those changes were made, you know why they should be keept, but you are still complaining to have the page look the way You want it to be like. You are just being stubborn for the sake of it at this point. I already told you, you can't bend things to your will. You won't bend things to your will.
There is no one else active enough in the Wiki am afraid, very few come now and then to make minor edits on certain pages, mostly the ESports section.
I've given you information, indications, fixed what you added and made a base for you to continue on. You can continue working on the this page or you can go. Right now you're just wasting our time, your's and mine's. We've got nothing else to discuss.--Malvodion (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional Information[edit source]

I feel we should come to a consensus on what kinds of additional information should be included in the "Notes" section of each ability. Below I will list some information that seems to be agreed upon, so future editors can follow a general idea.
-All additional CC that the ability includes is shown (the compounding of CC in Artemis' Transgressors Fate or replacement of CC in Medusa's Petrify).
-For these other CCs, the phrase "the duration" is used if the primary CC and other CC share a duration. "A duration" is used if they are different.
-Any damage or mana costs are not listed.
-The persistence of the CC (if it only effects an area, like Nox's Siphon Darkness) is displayed.
-Changes to the duration of an ability (the stacking of Ra's Divine Light, or refreshing of Ares' Shackles) is shown.
-The term "target" is used if the ability primarily affects one enemy, while "unit" is for more than one enemy (see Kumbhakarna's Epic Uppercut for a good example).
-Additional costs or requirements are listed (like Rama's Astral Arrows, the chance of Sylvanus' Nature's Protection, or the stacking of basic attacks for Nu Wa's Strength of Wood).
-Specifically for Knockback and Knockup, the target or unit is inserted as an infix (e.g. This ability will also knock units up).

Now the consensus building:
-Some abilities mention if they pass through walls or minions. Should this be included in all abilities that do so?
-Some abilities mention if they only affect gods. Again, should this be included in all abilities that do so?

Making some decisions will help prevent confusion and keep the wiki consistent. Phylea (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds about right.
As for the other two points: I always keep the "passes through walls" bit because there were many users who didn't know than this or that ability could catch them while in the safety of their tower or spawn (in arena), and since the fact those abilities can go through walls is usually a selling point of theirs that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the tooltip, it makes sense to mention them here.
Mentioning some abilities work on gods only/have different behavior depending on the target is important since it helps the reader evaluate if its possible to hide behind minions or other targets to shield yourself, or if it can penetrate targets and hit everything in the area.--Malvodion (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Crowd Control Reduction[edit source]

Due to the large number of CCR items added in S3, perhaps we should create a section on Statistics for it and remove the section here. If necessary, we could have a short blub and a link directing users to the section on Statistics. If you think we should keep a list of items, then I think they should be listed in a table now that there are so many of them. Thoughts? --Phylea (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing Tremble[edit source]

The Tremble crowd control type is missing. It's produced by Cabrakan and Cu Chulainn (possible others), and seems functionally identical to intoxicate, though does appear distinctly in the combat log. -Phylea (talk)