Talk:Status effect

List of status effects
Is it really necessary to list every status effect conceivable? I think this article would benefit from some parsimony. To me, it makes a lot more sense to list a set of example status effects common to many games, and then list what status effects are in a game in that game's own article. 24.181.238.254 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Андрей Кромсан (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Final Fantasy?
Status Ailments/Status effects do not belong solely to any particular genre of video games; this includes FF.
 * Agreed, however FF really started much of the use of stauts ailment in games, and is ever present in the genre. Derktar 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC).

I guess her/his point is that, unless every NON-FF facts are removed from the article it cannot be classified as "WikiProject Final Fantasy" I think sie's right... -- Requiem the 18th (email)
 * I think this article needs to become Status effect (Final Fantasy) and be solely about the FF status effects if it is to make such frequent references to the game. I also feel this article should be pruned of most of its specific game references, except where they are notable (game of origination, or use in pop culture), in order to be most usefull to the video game category at large. --Bakkster Man 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't concern only Final Fantasy. Nearly every Console RPG, and even some Computer ones, use status effects.  Final Fantasy is only mentioned so much because, Suprise! Damn near everybody knows of it, so most people think of it first.  -- SAMAS
 * Indeed, it will probably be difficult to find any RPG/CRPG/cRPG that does not have any form of “attribute up” effect, even though most games don’t call this a “status effect” but just “attribute bonus” (or something similar). --TowerDragon 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We still have a problem. A significant portion of the article fels as if it is written specifically for Final Fantasy, like the part about Protect/shell. It could use cleanup. Metakraid 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I experienced, at least in Hungary, many people mix the words "Dispel" and "Debuff". So While a player uses an attack that also dispels the target (which as I know means, sets off all BUFFs) The target then is berserked that, WHY DID YOU DEBUFF ME? Well, the Article tells the Debuff's meaning, which is clear, that has nothing to do with Dispel, although Dispel sets Buffs off, Dispel won't cause negative effects (I mean the Dispel which has no other special effects, so not a Special Skill, simply Dispel magic or skill that Dispels, but causes no other status effects) :) Are there people who mix this elsewhere? If yes, know this:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyss Ammadelch (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest use of tables
I think the list can be a bit more organized if a Wikitable were to be used. It could contain columns such as name (common and aliases), effect, and a how to cure (commonly). Also, I don't think attribute increasers should count, as they directly affect attributes, whereas I'd think a status effect is a modifier to a damage formula. -- XenoL-Type 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC -7)

To put a sample up..

-- XenoL-Type 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC +9)


 * I'll take a look into it after we clear up this merger mess.
 * In addition, however, I originally indluded the Attribute Up/Down listings(originally called Attack/Defense UP/DOWN), because in some games, such as Phantasy Star Online, they are specific status effects. SAMAS

Definition??
The definition given here isn’t very helpful. Maybe I am getting something wrong, but at first glance the description “A status effect is a modification to a character’s condition” gives me a more general term (a genus in the sense of a genus-differentia definition) but nothing distinguishing a status effect from other modifications to a character’s condition (no differentia). Also, it is not clear what “a character’s condition” might be.

If, on the other hand, condition = status, and modification ≈ effect, the “definition” translates to “a status effect is something that affects a character’s status” – not particularly helpful either.

So I guess, a better definition might be:
 * A status effect is any effect in a computer or video game that changes a game character’s state.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or change the main article accordingly. (Other effects would then affect non-character game objects, right?)

— TowerDragon 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To my mind, a "status effect" should be temporary, or at least reversible. So if you receive a stat enhancement from gaining a level or equipping an item, that would not be a status effect. 209.210.225.6 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Buff (MMORPG terminology)
“Buff” and “debuff” are (apparently MMORPG-specific) terms for beneficial and harmful status effects, respectively. So, the “Buff” page would be just a dictionary entry, and status effect appears to be the more general term and should thus be used as the page title. --TowerDragon 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, Buff is the more commonly used term, and thus it should stay. The standard is to use the more common term for the article and redirect others into it.  I've never heard the "Can anyone status effect me!"  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, a Google search reveals nearly half a million (492000) results for “debuff” (including the last name “DeBuff”), the majority of which (326000) appear together with “World of Warcraft” / “EverQuest” / “Dark Age of Camelot” / “Asheron's Call” / “MMORPG”. (Counting results for “buff” is futile because of the word’s broad meaning.) This is in contrast to only 57000 for “status effect” (and many of those seem not to be concerned with gaming). In addition, status effect seems to be a rather technical term, while buff/debuff is more colloquial. So indeed, “buff” and “debuff” appear to be the more commonly used terms (if only due to the popularity of MMORPGs).
 * Funny, I just Googled Status Effect, and got just over two million hits. I narrowed it down by adding "+RPG" to it, and still got well over a million.  SAMAS 13:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The trick is not to google for "status" and "effect" (input 'status effect') but for "status effect" (input '"status effect"', that is, enclose the term in double quotation marks). Otherwise, you get all kind of stuff but little with the phrase "status effect" in it: like so —TowerDragon 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the Wikipedia naming convention is to “use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.” Well, “buff” clearly does conflict with names of other people or things (see buff), that’s why the relevant article is named “Buff (MMORPG terminology)” and “Buff” is a disambiguation page. So IMO the simpler title (that does not need disambiguating parantheses) should be preferred. --TowerDragon 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not registered here or anything, but as someone who's played MMORPGs for several years now, I've never heard the term "status effect" used this way. "Buff" and "Debuff" are used by both players and developers (Blizzard Entertainment, World of Warcraft game manual, the GuildWiki Guild Wars player community). --

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.75.115 (talk • contribs) 02:34, August 2, 2006


 * Per discussion here, and research boff is more common. A month of discussion seems reasonable.  Article merged to buff.  Wikibofh(talk) 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Almost the entire top half of the original Status Effect article is completely cut off, resulting in a serious loss of non-MMO status effect information.  Temporarily de-merged, at least until tomorrow, when I or someone else can do a merge that doesn't look like it was done with barbed wire and a rusty chainsaw.  Unfortunately, I'm too tired to do it now.  SAMAS 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll give it a few days, then I'll do the merge and make it a full history merge.  Wikibofh(talk) 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the "status effect" terminology. It's more technical, and, even if it's not the most common term in MMORPGs, it still seems to be the most universally applicable term: most MMORPGers would recognize it, whereas the terms "buff" and "debuff" are almost never used in non-online RPGs. Using myself as an entirely non-representative sample, I've been gaming offline since 1986, and never heard the latter terms until coming here. If nothing else, "status effect" is used in far more games (off the top of my head, I can think of the Might and Magic series, the Wizardry series, the Ultima series, the Dragon Quest series, the Final Fantasy series, and the Pokemon series, which is, IIRC, still the most popular C/cRPG ever produced). Besides which, I'm getting the same results as SAMAS: approximately 1.2 million Google results for "status effect+RPG". – Sean Daugherty (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * About the Google search, see my note above. Nevertheless, I, too, prefer the term "status effect", for the reasons stated above. —TowerDragon 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This and This are NOT same. And using results from second search to support statement that "status effects" is used more often is fallacious. I really don't see whats wrong with having 2 different articles. Buffs should concern itself only with MMORPGS while Status effects would concern only non-online games. Nobody on MMORPGs uses "status effect", and no offline game uses "Buffs". Excise FF information from Buffs article and leave both of them separate is my opinion. Shinhan 10:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As of 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC), the definitions of both terms are: So, the differences are: Conclusion: buff and positive status effect on the one hand and debuff and negative status effect on the other hand are synonyms, denoting the same respective concepts in different domains of discourse (MMORPGS vs. non-online games). Of course, the precise list of effects used will depend on the game in question, and no two games will have the same list of status effects / buffs / debuffs. Nevertheless, there is significant overlap in the lists of effects from both articles. I cannot see two articles essentially describing the same thing should be kept separate. The naming of the article is another issue, though, but I cannot imagine somone (who doesn’t already know the article) typing in “Buff (MMORPG terminology)”, so they will just look for Buff and get the dab page that can direct them to the appropriate article. Therefore, and for the reasons I stated above, I still vote for status effect as the title of a single, merged, article.
 * “A status effect is a modification to a game character’s original set of properties that usually comes into play when special powers and abilities (such as spells) are used, often during combat.”
 * “Buff is a term generically used in many MMORPGs to describe an effect (usually cast as a spell) which beneficially enhances the target PC or NPC [and] a debuff is an effect that may negatively impact a [PC] or [NPC] in some way other than directly dealing damage.” In other words:
 * “Buffs and debuffs, in MMORPG terminology, are effects which beneficially enhance or negatively impact (in some way other than directly dealing damage), respectively, the target game character[’s original set of properties] and that usually come into play when spells are used.
 * Buff/debuff are used in MMORPGs while status effect is used in other games.
 * The definitions for debuff explicitly excludes directly dealing damage. I suppose this is also true for negative status effects but has just not been made explicit.
 * The status effect definition explicitly generalizes spells to special powers and abilities. I suppose this, too, is also true for buffs/debuffs but has just not been made explicit.

— TowerDragon 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that. SAMAS 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an old discussion, yet the page keeps showing the "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with..." thing. This article looks way cleaner than the Buff, and i also think this name "Status Effect" its a better name for this term. So, unless someone wants to add something im gonna remove the merging comment by the start of the next week. Lord Juan 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some references that show this term is not made up
So I see no reason to keep the “original research” template. --TowerDragon 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * RPGtoolkit Help — Editor Guide — Status Effect Editor
 * Final Fantasy IX Status Effect FAQ (dated 22/9/01)
 * Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles page on WarCry (dated 05/07/04)
 * Pokémon Adventures Status Effect Guide (dated 3/7/2001)

Although I cannot reference it directly, it should be noted that RPG video game manuals tend to call the term "status effect", "status ailment" or "status abnormality". Some player's guides I have also refer this as "status effect" (Parasite Eve's 1 and 2). -- XenoL-Type 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just get a published strategy guide (like one from Prima Games) that mentions the term "status effect" and use that as a reference at least. Published hard-copy sources are better references. See WP:RS for more info. -Eekerz (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaner merge?
Why not simply update it over at Buff? What exactly are you looking for? You want a history merge? Wikibofh(talk) 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The merge amputated a good deal of information on the non-mmo effects.  Status Effect and the related terms have been around just as long, if not longer, than Buff/Debuff, and the Status Effects themselves certainly predate the MMO term.  I'm about to go to bed right now, but I plan on doing a better merge tomorrow.  SAMAS 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Idea, put the "Buff" terminology explanation on top, debuff underneath, and list under that. This way it'll look like it defines the types, their general effects, and then it'd get specific with what kinds of buffs and debuffs (if you will) are in the RPG world. -- XenoL-Type 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason I had them seperate in the first place was because Buffs and Debuffs in most MMORPG's seem to be treated differently than they do in the single-player games. I don't play MMO's(yet), but from what I've heard from talking to those who do, they seem to be different in use. SAMAS 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I think I might get what you mean. Buffs and debuffs in MMORPGs mostly serve to change the base attributes of a chracter temporarily (such as raise attack, lower defense, etc). I kind of feel like they're akin to most of the DnD effects of spells (this will cause a change of 2d10 in your attack or whatever). I mean, I go look at Diablo II, the only status effect I seen on the list that I could apply to that game is slow (or frozen) and poison. Wouldn't it suck to go on a 20 man instance, only to have the monsters silence all of your mages and therefore wouldn't be able to do AOE stuff?
 * In any case, MMORPGs are pretty much all action-based RPG's, while most of the ones in the list are for traditional RPGs. Also if I wanted to get mean, isn't the term "status effect" a lot older than buff/debuff?- XenoL-Type 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * @XenoL-Type: “… put the ‘Buff’ terminology explanation on top…” – It is there since 2006-06-29T00:03:03. (The last sentence of the first paragraph.) Could be expanded a bit, maybe, to state that typically only basic attributes (according to the particular game’s mechanics) are affected. —TowerDragon 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "Unique status effects"
I removed the "Unique Status Effects" section, since it seems to want to be a list of every status effect in existence. User:Ben Standeven/209.210.225.6 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh believe me, there's a whole lot more than that. But you have a point. But don't you think you're using a chainsaw for a problem where a scapel would be more suitable? SAMAS 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Ridiculous Article
Status Effects should just be listed in the game-specific articles that they are related to. This subject belongs in the Wiktionary at best as aside from defining a status effect it's just a horribly incomplete list of somewhat random status effects.

If anyone honestly thinks that this is worthy of its own Encyclopedic Article then it needs to have a huge list Organized by Game/Series and since that list would be huge it's not very sensible. Either include them all or just don't include any examples. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree.. same with the Buff article. They are both either unneeded, or need to be revised. Nothing in either article is prose explaining why buffs/status effects exist. I've read Buff In The Final Fantasy XII Player's guide for crying out loud! Status Effect means the exact same thing. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia rules or anything, so as a layperson who sees "Buff" coming into the gaming vernacular for ALL types of RPG, I think it would be wonderful if someone could eloquently MERGE both articles into one cohesive unit. Currently the Buff article reads like a list of MMORPG STATUS EFFECTS with some random RPG info at the bottom. If you can't fix these please just get rid of both and make them dictionary terms that all games' articles could link to when appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.99.242 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. What the hell is the point of this article? Why did someone decide this was necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia? I say this as a fan of the RPG genre: this is a ridiculous article, and should probably be deleted.--68.149.127.157 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very usefull for me!
Hello!

For good of this article, I must say it's very usefull for me! I'm currently developing a freeware RPG for Nintendo DS (look to wikipedia ^^) (Legend of Beneshov) and I found here very much good ideas for status aliments. Thanks for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.97.104 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I suggest we merge Buff (video gaming) into this article. The two are roughly duplicates, except the Buff article uses more obscure terminology. As well, the article is about both buffs and debuffs, meaning that for all intents and purposes, it should be named Status Effects. Basically, we can grab any information from the Buff article that isn't already present here, and maintain one smaller, better article instead of two. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree for one main reason: Buff as a video game term is not JUST a synonym for "status effect," but it's also the antonym of nerf (as far as game balancing is concerned). Both meanings should be explored here. See also Nerf (video gaming) --AyaJulia (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but both buffs and debuffs/nerfs are types of status effects. Heck, our article even splits effects into these two categories. I don't think the two topics are unique enough to justify their own articles, when one monolithic article can encompass all of that information much better.
 * Perhaps the best solution would be to merge the buff (status effect) information into this article, and merge the buff (anti-nerf) information into the Nerf article, with a 'did you mean' link at the top of each page for those looking for the alternate usage of 'buff'. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of "nerf" used as a synonym for "debuff," nor the opposite; a nerf has always been a developer change to a skill or ability that makes it less powerful, while a debuff has always been a negative status effect. At any rate, it doesn't really matter to me what's done with it as long as the link pointing here from the "nerf" article gets taken into account. --AyaJulia (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AKA?
I have heard the term "malus" used to describe what this articel terms "debuffs". 104.229.142.212 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "malus" is Latin, roughly means "bad", and is an antonym of "bonus". I have heard the term used in this context, but it does seem pretty rare. Either way, it seems to have been removed from the article. 162.252.201.32 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)