Regularization of Terminology

[srmalloy]

There are two different terms used in power descriptions that appear to mean the same thing: PBAoE and 'Close (AoE)'. Both of these describe a power that activates in a radius centered on the caster, but the usage seems to be disjoint. Looking at my Radiation/Mental Blaster, she has:

 

Drain Psyche	PBAoE	10 ft Radius	Buff/Debuff
World of Confusion	PBAoE	8 ft Radius	DoT, Confuse
Atomic Blast	PBAoE	25 ft Radius	Dmg, Mez, Debuff
Irradiate	Close(AoE)	20 ft Radius	DoT, Debuff
Psychic Shockwave	Close(AoE)	15 ft Radius	Dmg, Debuff

 

From the power descriptions, the radius is not the determinant as to whether a power is categorized as PBAoE or a 'Close(AoE)'; neither is whether the power does straight-up damage or a DoT, and all the powers that do damage take Melee AoE Damage enhancement sets. It appears that the labeling of the powers is an archaism from the early days of CoH that has been supplanted in function, and I would suggest that all "Close(AoE)" powers be relabeled as PBAoE to standardize the nomenclature. 

 

[Snarky]

in the early days of CoH the Devs ACTIVELY tried to obscure players understanding things.  Having this group of Devs weed through that BS is actually asking a lot.

[Jacke]

3 minutes ago, Snarky said:

in the early days of CoH the Devs ACTIVELY tried to obscure players understanding things.  Having this group of Devs weed through that BS is actually asking a lot.

 

In the real early days of CoH the Devs ACTIVELY tried to obscure Devs understanding things.  They sure didn't even have the understanding of the impact of numbers on an RPG that Pen+Paper RPG Players and Devs had.

 

It's only when Players like Arcanaville worked to understand the Game by careful testing that what was really going was begun to be understood.

 

 

[biostem]

IMHO, anything centered around the player should be a "PBAoE".  A "Close AoE" would be something where you can target a close ally, enemy, or location and the AoE is centered around them...

[Apogee]

21 minutes ago, biostem said:

IMHO, anything centered around the player should be a "PBAoE".  A "Close AoE" would be something where you can target a close ally, enemy, or location and the AoE is centered around them...

 

Wouldn't that just be a Targeted AoE?

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Apogee said:

Wouldn't that just be a Targeted AoE?

Well, it could sort of be a subset of "Targeted AoE", implying a much shorter range, (while still being further than the aforementioned "PBAoE")...

[Rudra]

11 minutes ago, biostem said:

Well, it could sort of be a subset of "Targeted AoE", implying a much shorter range, (while still being further than the aforementioned "PBAoE")...

I'm more in favor of just doing away with "Close (Aoe)" since they are all just PBAoEs, and just calling them PBAoEs. Anything that requires a target for the AoE remains Targeted AoE and anything that just requires a location to place the AoE remains a Location AoE. We already see some confusion when it comes to cones with there being ranged cones and melee cones both emanating from the player character. Let's not add a new Targeted AoE that is Close AoE.

 

Edited December 13 by Rudra
Edited to correct "Aoe" to "AoE".

[Ukase]

On 12/12/2025 at 6:21 PM, Jacke said:

It's only when Players like Arcanaville worked to understand the Game by careful testing that what was really going was begun to be understood.

Arcana used to just blow my mind with the simple clarity, yet full illustration of what the issue was with just about any topic they wrote about. This type of technical writing that an obtuse person like myself could get a grasp of is very rare, and I really miss it. Don't know where they are now, but it'd be nice to have them back! 

 

[RikOz]

On a similar note, Stun/Disorient, using two different words for the same effect.

[Decaying Rose]

On 12/14/2025 at 9:13 AM, Ukase said:

Arcana used to just blow my mind with the simple clarity, yet full illustration of what the issue was with just about any topic they wrote about. This type of technical writing that an obtuse person like myself could get a grasp of is very rare, and I really miss it. Don't know where they are now, but it'd be nice to have them back! 

 

I remember ArcanaTime--heck, it's still in Mid's as a display option, I think.

I also remember around that same time we classified every power based on the "Brawl Index", or how many unslotted Brawls of damage that power did for that particular AT.  

[Greycat]

"Term alignment" or whatever you want to call it seems to be a project that gets taken up every once in a while, some of the work gets done, then I imagine whatever poor intern or dev it's been over the years gets overwhelmed and takes on something else.  Been that way with ... what was it, snare/immobilize, for instance, I want to say sleeps, fears, quite a few things.  And of course some don't get changed I'd assume because they're the "internal" vs "external" (player/UI facing) name and probably sneak through there. 

 

Honestly I'd put it less towards "the original devs tried to obscure" and more towards "the original devs weren't an experienced team and all it would take is two different people naming things without a standard in place." The "Low/medium/high" vague damage ratings were intentional obfuscation, the different names? Less inclined to put towards that - if anything, more of a flavor choice on an individual power. 

 

But, yeah. Unify the names and what things mean.