Talk:Duration

Needed

Is this really needed? Wikipedia:Duration does a whole lot better job, and since this article describes a definition of an english word, IMO it doesn't belong in this wiki. — Galil 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration

What is needed is an explanation of the significance of (3...5...15), et.al. I know it is number of seconds, but why is this sequence listed? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:98.199.220.162 (talk).

Deletion

I'm opposed to deletion. This is the most appropriate place to explain how duration stacks and how it is rounded. -- Gordon Ecker 01:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it rounded? Is it just normal rounding (everything from .5 up rounds up) or do they take the integer only? 86.31.119.66 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some research on GuildWiki with Blessed Aura and Balthazar's Aura indicates that values over 0.5 are rounded up and values under 0.5 are rounded down, but was unclear about how 0.5 would be handled, other research with Shield of Absorption indicates that numbers are truncated. Testing with Plague Signet in scrimmage indicates a condition duration cap of ~12 hours. I plan on doing more testing with Blessed Aura later this week. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK well I went and tested this myself with "Find Their Weakness!" at 9 Command (12 sec duration) and Vocal was Sogolon at 1 Restoration (+22%) and it does indeed seem to round up as that ought to give you a 14.64-second duration and I was able to re-use the shout just after it ended (and it has a 15-second recharge). 86.31.119.66 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, meant to say I used FTW! at 7 Command. Testing with VwS, "Incoming!" and QZ seems to indicate the same thing, but then there's the recharge rounding to be taken into account too. 86.31.119.66 11:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean up?

Is there anything else that needs to be cleaned up on this page? Elric

No, quite honestly I think this page should be deleted. Certainly it "works" as a page, it isn't abhorrent, but it doesn't help new players as much as simply looking up what the word "duration" means on something like [1].

Well, I cleaned up the article and I think it's much easier to follow now, though I think it might be missing some skills, not sure. HarunoMidori 12:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondering

In gw, if the duration modified and became 20.4 second, is it count as 20? if 20.5 is it count as 21?--TeaCat._. 15:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, everything strictly under 0.5 is rounded down and everything from and including 0.5 is rounded up. So yes, 20.4 would be 20 and 20.5 would be 21. HarunoMidori 19:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

mulit step duriaiton changing.

currently limited to conditions as the enchanting page and its talk already explain how percents are multiplicative addiction (as in a skill +20% +25% = X * 1.2 * 1.25). but the case i'm trying to bring up is during situations like plague signet and signet of agony + weapon modifiers or extend conditions + archer's signet + weapon mod. first exampled combo takes time between that can be minimized on the master of damage, however on archer's signet's talk page the math is a bit lost/confused. that situation is extremely pointless (questionably long bleeding is not good) but the math and process IS important to at least document.

i assume the archer's signet, weapon mod, and extend conditions will happen similar to enchants, straight multiplying done all at once (30 * 2 * 1.33 = 79.8 = 80)... but that is because it is only a one time modification of status. in a the combo of contagion+ agony signet or the (silly in practice) combo on previous paragraph, application of conditions is multi/two-fold. or so the archer's signet's page thought... the result was higher than expected. i understand that a skill is missing that boosts condition duration but the procedure is still the same. 96.15.181.113 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC) -edit: archer's signet's talk page not plauge-

I can see that you are trying to make a point about multiplicative affects vs additive affects, but it's unclear to me what you are suggesting. Is there a gap in the current documentation? Can you provide an example that focuses on the math (and not so much whether a skill combination is useful)? Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)