Inconsistency in passive/skill/other naming conventions (Conceptually)

General
1

I know this is a very minor thing but I feel it’s important for game design in general.
I’ll just use one example for now but could add more to be helpful as I notice them or just let it go if the devs say they are on it:)

For example: The “Stolen Vitality” node for acolyte says “Grants your minions 9% increased health”. At level one that is.

Contrastly, Although very similar in concept the “Embrace of the Grave” passive node from the Necromancer tree states “Your minions gain +5% increased health per allocated point” again also at level one. Note the different styles of how the node bonuses are depicted.

Although I and most people would intuitively think these are the exact same types of gains you could see how the difference in wording would lead people to believe that they maybe are different in how they work mathematically within the game. In general these types of discrepancies can be confusing to players. Especially new ones. Hey, maybe they are actually different mechanically and this entire thread is useless=D

This is certainly not the best example. The main point I want to make is that the more consistent the wording in skill/passive descriptions the less confusion there will be.

Again I know I am nitpicking here but I just want to bring overall attention to the concept of across the board naming conventions and how they make understanding statistics/mechanics much easier. Not so much in this specific example but just as a backbone of passive and skill descriptions in general.

1 Like
2

TLDR;

Please understand that even though its only minor; absolute consistency in wording for all aspects of the game will make everything easier for players to understand.

1 Like
3

Absolutely-- being our QA Lead I’m very interested in making sure our descriptions are consistent and are intuitive for players.

We have multiple people working on skills, passives and items and how we’ve worded some things have changed over time. This leads to the sorts of discrepancies you described. With how frequently we add new content and how likely things are to change, we haven’t put as much time into making sure existing nodes are standardized, though we do try to align on how to format future effects. As we get closer to release this will change, but at the moment we want to maintain a strong pace and avoid work that will get overwritten.

If there are any particularly egregious examples we’re happy to take a look, but a full pass will come later.

4

Great to hear:)

5

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.