Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Register
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
{{Forumheader|Wowpedia general}}
−
{{Bp}}{{Abilitytip
 
  +
<!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
−
|name=Stormstrike
 
  +
Hey.
−
|width=18em
 
−
|float={{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Stormstrike|right|left}}
 
−
|icon=Spell_Holy_SealOfMight
 
−
|range=6
 
−
|cost=15% of base
 
−
|cast=0
 
−
|costunit=Mana
 
−
|desc=Instantly attack with both weapons. In addition, the next 2 sources of Nature damage dealt to the target are increased by 20%. Lasts 12 sec.
 
−
}}
 
   
  +
As you may or may not know, Pride from OMFG has started a show on Youtube explaining World of Warcraft lore in bite sized chunks. This show is Lore For Noobs (L4N).<br>
−
==Functionality==
 
  +
I am part of Pride's L4N team, and I have taken upon me the humble task of adding these videos to the relevant articles on this wiki. However, I have just now found out that these videos are disappearing. I don't know why. I know this is a wiki and anyone can alter any page, but I really don't understand why someone would remove the videos. Is there any way to stop this from happening?
−
When you cast this spell, you immediately launch a melee attack against the currently targeted opponent, which has a normal chance to hit, and appears to be subject to normal combat procs like Windfury. ([[Dual wield|Dual wielding]] shamans strike with both weapons simultaneously as the description above states, although a shaman does not need to dual wield in order for Stormstrike to be useful to them.) If you are in between swings of your weapon and hit your target with Stormstrike, it will not count as another normal swing or disrupt the timing of your attacks. For example, if you take 3 seconds between weapon swings and use Stormstrike 1 second after you have struck your target with a normal swing, you will only have to wait 2 more seconds before taking another normal swing. If you hit the target with Stormstrike right before you were timed to land a normal melee hit, you will launch the normal melee attack right after the Stormstrike instead of having to wait another few seconds before swinging again. In this way, it is similar in certain ways to the [[Windfury]] proc in that it allows the shaman to hit their target twice in a short span of time. The target also acquires a Stormstrike [[debuff]], which lasts until two sources of Nature damage hit it.
 
   
  +
--[[User:Ultima|Ultima]] ([[User talk:Ultima|talk]]) 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
===Use===
 
−
*'''Mana Cost:''' 15% of the shaman's [[Base Mana]]
 
−
*'''Casting Time:''' Instant Cast
 
−
*'''Range:''' 6 yards
 
−
*'''Secondary effect:''' the next 2 sources of [[schools of Magic|Nature]] damage dealt to the target are increased by 20%. Lasts for 12 seconds.
 
−
*'''Duration:''' 12 seconds.
 
−
*'''Cooldown:''' 10 seconds
 
   
  +
:Discuss their value with the people who are removing them? It might be being seen as unwarranted advertisement.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
===Limitations===
 
−
*To take full advantage of the spell, two [[Schools of Magic|Nature]] damage spells must be cast within the 12 seconds timespan before the secondary effect wears out. With [[Earth Shock]] on a 6 second cooldown (if no talent points are spent in [[Reverberation]] to reduce the cooldown), [[Lightning Bolt]] subject to losing casting time in melee, and [[Lightning Shield]] only doing a small amount of damage compared to the other two, the Shaman is limited in their choices to take full advantage of the debuff.
 
−
*The damage of the extra attack is dependent on the damage rating of the caster's weapon.
 
−
*The extra attack doesn't assure the caster a hit toward the target, and if it misses, the debuff isn't applied.
 
−
*With the advent of Dual Wielding in Patch 2.0.1, Stormstrike was changed to instantly hit with all equipped weapons.
 
   
  +
::Agreed; that or they might appear too... cheery for a pedia. [[User:TherasTaneel|TherasTaneel]] ([[User talk:TherasTaneel|talk]]) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
===Rank Table===
 
   
  +
:::A bit too "happy" for me xD
−
{| class="darktable"
 
  +
:::{{User:A'noob/sig}} 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
|-
 
−
! Rank !! Level !! Type !! Mana Cost !! Description !! Cost
 
   
  +
::::Excuse me? too "happy"? What does that mean? I happen to write for Lore 4 Noobs too. I wrote the Illidan ones you took down and trust me, I am not a happy fairy unicorn princess.
−
|- class="alt" align="left"
 
  +
::::[[User:Graict|Graict]] ([[User talk:Graict|talk]]) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
| 1 || N/A || Enhancement || 15% of base Mana || Instantly attack with both weapons. In addition, the next 2 sources of Nature damage dealt to the target are increased by 20%. Lasts 12 sec. || Need talent points on [[Shaman Talents#Stormstrike|Stormstrike]]
 
  +
:::::I don't see the point of including them, since all the information is already in the article anyway. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
|}
 
  +
::::::That's a slippery slope, since so are the videos on [[Archimonde]] e.g. [[User:TherasTaneel|TherasTaneel]] ([[User talk:TherasTaneel|talk]]) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
   
  +
::::Thats like saying you don't see the point of having videos showing how to take down a raid boss because all the information is written. These videos make it easier to understand.
−
===Tips===
 
  +
::::[[User:Graict|Graict]] ([[User talk:Graict|talk]]) 22:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
* Stormstrike is not considered a spell, meaning you can still use it even while silenced.
 
  +
:::::There's a big difference between telling someone what a boss does and seeing what they do. I don't see how a video explaining who Illidan is is so different than text explaining who Illidan is. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
* Consider specing elemental to clearcasting, which increases the mana efficiency and damage of the two earth shocks and reduces their cost.
 
−
* Spending a talent point on [[Shamanistic Focus]] in the enhancement tree will also reduce the mana cost of your shocks after you land a melee critical strike, making it useful here.
 
−
* Prior to patch 1.11, Stormstrike cost 30% of base mana and only reset the swing timer, so that it was only useful as an opener or just after a regular swing. It now acts as described, causing an instant, extra attack.
 
−
*To deal maximum damage, it is recommended that the shaman hit their enemy with Stormstrike and immediately follow that up with an Earth Shock. Even if the cooldown for their Earth Shock ability is the full 6 seconds, the debuff lasts for 12 seconds--plenty of time for the shaman to blast their enemy with a second Earth Shock. The shaman should not have Lightning Shield activated during this time as any damage it deals will get rid of the Stormstrike debuff and cause only a fraction of the damage a second Earth Shock would. The shaman might also consider dropping a [[Wrath_of_Air_Totem|Wrath of Air totem]] before the fight, as this will further increase the damage of the two Earth Shocks. The shaman's opponent must not be [[immune]] to Nature damage of course; [[Air Elemental|air elementals]] take no damage from Earth Shock, to give just one example.
 
   
  +
::::I think it's pretty obvious that most people prefer to listen to someone talking about a subject, instead of reading large chunks of text. The L4N videos provides an easier way for these people the get access to lore, so that they don't have to read the huge articles about the different individual subjects. Perhaps a WoW player has trouble reading, and he wanted ot know about lore, if so Lore 4 Noobs is the perfect solution. In my personal opinion, the videos are only doing good for the pedia. I'm Ziztran, and I'm also a writer for L4N, and I'm just posting this because I really don't see the point of removing them from the various sites.[[User:Ziztran|Ziztran]] ([[User talk:Ziztran|talk]]) 22:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
{{SpellFooter|Shaman}}
 
   
  +
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down Dumbing down], it's the hottest new thrill! I don't care much for it, but I guess it helps the...less literary? [[User:TherasTaneel|TherasTaneel]] ([[User talk:TherasTaneel|talk]]) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
−
[[Category:Shaman Abilities]]
 
  +
−
[[Category:Shaman Talents]]
 
  +
::::It helps the people who have trouble reading, like dyslexic people. As a matter of fact, I have a friend who loves wow, and loved the stragety games that came before, and he especially loves the lore, but he's dyslexic and therefor has alot of trouble reading the wowpedia articles and the books, even the comics. I think this would help people with these learning disabillity, why keep them from having a taste of the magnificent lore Blizzard provides?[[User:Ziztran|Ziztran]] ([[User talk:Ziztran|talk]]) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::::If the videos are now intended as an audio/visual equivalent for the articles themselves, and not just an addition to the articles, is Wowpedia's actual endorsement being sought?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::The thing is, they're not equivalent, they're an easier way for people to get the important lore. The articles themselves have more detail, but the fatal lore that cannot be missed is displayed in L4N. [[User:Ziztran|Ziztran]] ([[User talk:Ziztran|talk]]) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
:::::Ultimately, here's the way I see it: the L4N videos contain nothing that the articles don't already have. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Hey, This is Pride, I created L4N, we added the videos to the pages because this is a community driven wiki, and we being apart of the WoW community felt we could give an alternative source of information in regards to WoW Lore, but we refresh ourselves on wowpedia when we start writing an episode, why not share said content with wowpedia? No we arent looking for any endorsement like I said you help us more than enough by simply having the information available when we need it and we say thanks to that by adding a -wowpedia.org tag on some of the cards we use. If you want to talk about endorsement things, an admin can find my email. Its all over the place. Really what it comes down to is that it cant hurt to have L4N on the matching wiki articles and it really makes no sense to remove them when we put them up. If an admin wants to actually talk to me about it, again my email is easy to find. [[User:Pride|Pride]] ([[User talk:Pride|talk]]) 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
::I don't see why so many people are against it, it briefly explain the character with some information that is already in the article, but in the form of video with cards, although to be fair you should put the wowpedia article link somewhere in the video(or in that thing where you can put words below the video).--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:I had doubts about it when I first saw them appearing on pages, but after watching them I had no problems with them. It's actually nice to have a recap of what is already on the article, or what may be missing from the article. Though I'll admit, I'm not sure if embedded videos are the way to go, but maybe instead link to the youtube page. A [[WP:VOTE]] maybe needed, should disagreements continue between sides. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:I think it is a nice idea to have resources available to users in more than one medium. I am sure people who have have bad eye sight or have problem with eye strain might appreciate a video format. I'd like to address an example though. For instance, http://www.wowpedia.org/History_of_the_Horde is intimidating and my first thought was "wall of text". However, the videos at the bottom though ''are'' intrusive. I understand it is a lengthy subject being discussed requiring so many videos but going from the wall of text to a wall of videos doesn't seem to be an inviting solution. Links might be appropriate as previously suggest or maybe even posting one video which contains links or information leading to the next in the series. --[[User:Royalite|Royalite]] ([[User talk:Royalite|talk]]) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
::After reviewing more of the videos it dawned on me that if the OPs argument for the videos would be for dyslexics or (what I put forward) those with poor eyesight, the videos would best be viewed un-embedded. The pictures are too small and the writing on the cards impossible to distinguish within the embedded window, further the videos encourage reading the text on youtube if you didn't catch all the information. The more I am thinking about it the more links make sense for both the purpose of what the videos intend to achieve and how best they could be utilized on the wowpedia site. The OP seems to prefer embedded videos but the only reason I could justify was it being a flashy catch --[[User:Royalite|Royalite]] ([[User talk:Royalite|talk]]) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
:::I agree, and it has been changed to links. {{User:Coobra/Sig4}} 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
::::We understand your reasons for this decision. I will add links to future Lore For Noobs episodes instead of embedding them, and start changing any other parts that are already embedded to links aswell. Please do understand that while some of the L4N team have implied here that these video's are here to help dyslexics, this is not actually the main reason, though it might actually help those people. We mostly want to show our work here to add another way of providing the same information, and since alot of our information comes from this wiki we might aswell return the favor. But I must agree that especially on the horde page the increasing wall of videos was becomming intrusive. [[User:Ultima|Ultima]] ([[User talk:Ultima|talk]]) 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  +
This is actually good [[User:Skyzod324|Skyzod324]] ([[User talk:Skyzod324|talk]]) 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:40, 26 March 2011

Forums: Village pump → Lore For Noobs

Hey.

As you may or may not know, Pride from OMFG has started a show on Youtube explaining World of Warcraft lore in bite sized chunks. This show is Lore For Noobs (L4N).
I am part of Pride's L4N team, and I have taken upon me the humble task of adding these videos to the relevant articles on this wiki. However, I have just now found out that these videos are disappearing. I don't know why. I know this is a wiki and anyone can alter any page, but I really don't understand why someone would remove the videos. Is there any way to stop this from happening?

--Ultima (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss their value with the people who are removing them? It might be being seen as unwarranted advertisement.--SWM2448 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; that or they might appear too... cheery for a pedia. TherasTaneel (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A bit too "happy" for me xD
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? too "happy"? What does that mean? I happen to write for Lore 4 Noobs too. I wrote the Illidan ones you took down and trust me, I am not a happy fairy unicorn princess.
Graict (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the point of including them, since all the information is already in the article anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope, since so are the videos on Archimonde e.g. TherasTaneel (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats like saying you don't see the point of having videos showing how to take down a raid boss because all the information is written. These videos make it easier to understand.
Graict (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between telling someone what a boss does and seeing what they do. I don't see how a video explaining who Illidan is is so different than text explaining who Illidan is. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that most people prefer to listen to someone talking about a subject, instead of reading large chunks of text. The L4N videos provides an easier way for these people the get access to lore, so that they don't have to read the huge articles about the different individual subjects. Perhaps a WoW player has trouble reading, and he wanted ot know about lore, if so Lore 4 Noobs is the perfect solution. In my personal opinion, the videos are only doing good for the pedia. I'm Ziztran, and I'm also a writer for L4N, and I'm just posting this because I really don't see the point of removing them from the various sites.Ziztran (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Dumbing down, it's the hottest new thrill! I don't care much for it, but I guess it helps the...less literary? TherasTaneel (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It helps the people who have trouble reading, like dyslexic people. As a matter of fact, I have a friend who loves wow, and loved the stragety games that came before, and he especially loves the lore, but he's dyslexic and therefor has alot of trouble reading the wowpedia articles and the books, even the comics. I think this would help people with these learning disabillity, why keep them from having a taste of the magnificent lore Blizzard provides?Ziztran (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If the videos are now intended as an audio/visual equivalent for the articles themselves, and not just an addition to the articles, is Wowpedia's actual endorsement being sought?--SWM2448 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, they're not equivalent, they're an easier way for people to get the important lore. The articles themselves have more detail, but the fatal lore that cannot be missed is displayed in L4N. Ziztran (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, here's the way I see it: the L4N videos contain nothing that the articles don't already have. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, This is Pride, I created L4N, we added the videos to the pages because this is a community driven wiki, and we being apart of the WoW community felt we could give an alternative source of information in regards to WoW Lore, but we refresh ourselves on wowpedia when we start writing an episode, why not share said content with wowpedia? No we arent looking for any endorsement like I said you help us more than enough by simply having the information available when we need it and we say thanks to that by adding a -wowpedia.org tag on some of the cards we use. If you want to talk about endorsement things, an admin can find my email. Its all over the place. Really what it comes down to is that it cant hurt to have L4N on the matching wiki articles and it really makes no sense to remove them when we put them up. If an admin wants to actually talk to me about it, again my email is easy to find. Pride (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why so many people are against it, it briefly explain the character with some information that is already in the article, but in the form of video with cards, although to be fair you should put the wowpedia article link somewhere in the video(or in that thing where you can put words below the video).--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I had doubts about it when I first saw them appearing on pages, but after watching them I had no problems with them. It's actually nice to have a recap of what is already on the article, or what may be missing from the article. Though I'll admit, I'm not sure if embedded videos are the way to go, but maybe instead link to the youtube page. A WP:VOTE maybe needed, should disagreements continue between sides. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a nice idea to have resources available to users in more than one medium. I am sure people who have have bad eye sight or have problem with eye strain might appreciate a video format. I'd like to address an example though. For instance, http://www.wowpedia.org/History_of_the_Horde is intimidating and my first thought was "wall of text". However, the videos at the bottom though are intrusive. I understand it is a lengthy subject being discussed requiring so many videos but going from the wall of text to a wall of videos doesn't seem to be an inviting solution. Links might be appropriate as previously suggest or maybe even posting one video which contains links or information leading to the next in the series. --Royalite (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing more of the videos it dawned on me that if the OPs argument for the videos would be for dyslexics or (what I put forward) those with poor eyesight, the videos would best be viewed un-embedded. The pictures are too small and the writing on the cards impossible to distinguish within the embedded window, further the videos encourage reading the text on youtube if you didn't catch all the information. The more I am thinking about it the more links make sense for both the purpose of what the videos intend to achieve and how best they could be utilized on the wowpedia site. The OP seems to prefer embedded videos but the only reason I could justify was it being a flashy catch --Royalite (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and it has been changed to links. SnakeSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3For Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
We understand your reasons for this decision. I will add links to future Lore For Noobs episodes instead of embedding them, and start changing any other parts that are already embedded to links aswell. Please do understand that while some of the L4N team have implied here that these video's are here to help dyslexics, this is not actually the main reason, though it might actually help those people. We mostly want to show our work here to add another way of providing the same information, and since alot of our information comes from this wiki we might aswell return the favor. But I must agree that especially on the horde page the increasing wall of videos was becomming intrusive. Ultima (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually good Skyzod324 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)