Typo in Machinist PvP ability, Bioblaster

The second Additional Effect section.


"Additional Effect: Increases damage you deal target by 20%"


it's missing a "to" in there... so it should be "Increases damage you deal to target by 20%"

Just as you can deal someone five cards, you can deal someone some quantity of damage. It's not ungrammatical. Is there a similar tooltip we can reference for consistency?

Yeah, thats gramatically correct, even if having a "to" in there is more common

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Just as you can deal someone five cards, you can deal someone some quantity of damage. It's not ungrammatical. Is there a similar tooltip we can reference for consistency?

---

How about every other tooltip in the entire game?

Quote:

---

Deals wind damage with a potency of 30 to target and all enemies nearby it.

※This action cannot be assigned to a hotbar.

---

Quote:

---

Delivers an attack to target.
Combo Action: Hard Slash
Combo Potency: 1,200
Combo Bonus: Restores 1,000 MP

---

There's a difference between "You deal 5 damage." and "You deal 5 damage to <target name>." You do NOT say "You deal 5 damage target." or "You deal 5% increased damage target."



"Increases the damage you deal to target by 5%." would be correct, as you need to have a preposition in there. You do not "Drive 5 miles closest city." ... you "Drive road 5 miles to the closest city." (missing 'to' and ' the' in there.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stepjam

Yeah, thats gramatically correct, even if having a "to" in there is more common

---

I do not believe you know what you're talking about. While the word 'target' doesn't necessarily need a 'to' in front of it, that's only in cases when it's used in something like "Let's target a 5% increase in sales."... That is clearly not what is being used in this instance.

"Increases damage you deal (to) target by 20%" makes absolutely 0 grammatical sense without the 'to' in there. Especially when you consider that pretty much every other tooltip in the game that references something done "to a target" has the word "to" in it.

If you truly wanted to be anal about having it grammatically correct, there should be a 'your' in there. "Increases damage you deal to your target by 20%" would be perfect. But there's not always space in the tooltips to have that, so sometimes "your target" gets truncated down to just "target", since its heavily implied. In cases where something is done to someone else's target, it specifies that.

I cannot believe that I'm arguing about this... This is just like the time I reported an Alchemist leve back in 2.0 having the wrong level, because it used a level 25 item but could be taken when you were level 15 and had 0 chance of creating the item, and people on this forum tried to argue that it was meant to be that way as it was a design choice, and a moderator stepped in and moved my post to 'not a bug' because 'this sounds like a discussion on gameplay'... but the very next tuesday after I reported it, the level was fixed.


I'm just not going to bother reporting anything in the future, including the 30-some odd items that have spaces at the end of their name when there shouldn't be one (causing a double __ space when you link it in-game and have a space after <link>_) because I shouldn't have to defend my the obvious reason for why it needs fixing to someone else who thinks they know better, or tries to argue that its meant to be that way.



Good day!

Chill out dude, it's grammatically correct

And even if it turns out it isn't correct, calm yourself. There's no reason to get mad about this

Not reason to get mad but game development wise its probably a mistake,
skill explanation should have a template of sort and should not use different type of grammer just because its correct,
if they dont even have a template then ... wow ffxiv have such a hectic enviroment which can be improved easily...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hezkezl

How about every other tooltip in the entire game?

There's a difference between "You deal 5 damage." and "You deal 5 damage to <target name>." You do NOT say "You deal 5 damage target." or "You deal 5% increased damage target."

---

This is not the construct we're talking about. We're talking about dealing a target some amount of damage, not dealing some amount of damage to a target. It's grammatically correct to deal a target some amount of damage. Show me some tooltips where they word things in that order, not where they use a totally different construct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Just as you can deal someone five cards, you can deal someone some quantity of damage. It's not ungrammatical. Is there a similar tooltip we can reference for consistency?

---

Generally, this is only applicable when the verb is of grammatically identical form to, and replaceable with, the verb "to give" (e.g. "give someone five cards"). Just as historically accusative verbs will not allow for this historically dative construction ("take someone five cards") except as a prepositional phrase ("take someone five hands into debt"), it doesn't work here except through implicit substitution.

"Deal" (e.g. damage) is generally an monotransitive verb whereas "give", to make any normal sense, is (at least implicitly) ditransitive, and what would typically be called the "indirect object" here is not of the same meaning class as in "to give" (i.e. receiver>beneficiary). Has the stretch been made before? Certainly. But outside of cases where the verb is simply a shade of another that goes fit the grammatical class, "damage dealt target" is not inherently "proper" grammar. Rather, verb-shading is an accepted (though not broadly or prevalently) feature of the language's evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

"damage dealt target" is not inherently "proper" grammar.

---

This is still not the construct we're talking about.

We're talking about "damage you deal target", not "damage dealt target by you". The latter is missing a "to"; the former is not.

Sentences like "The orc's attack deals John five damage" are commonly heard in a tabletop gaming session. So again, regarding the quote about which this discussion began: it's not a problem of grammar. Do we have any tooltips that are worded exactly "damage you deal to target" that we can cite to show that this is a problem of consistency?

Personally, I'm fine with the wording either way. I'm just here to drop in the facts requested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Do we have any tooltips that are worded exactly "damage you deal to target" that we can cite to show that this is a problem of consistency?

---

Similar to Bioblaster (PvP):

MNK - Demolish (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

DRG - Chaos Thrust (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

NIN - Shadow Fang (PvP)
Additional Effect: Increases damage you deal target by 20%

SAM - Yukikaze (PvP)
Combo Bonus: Increases damage you deal target by 20%


Dissimilar to Bioblaster (PvP):

Caster Additional Action - Phantom Dart (PvP)
Additional Effect: Increases damage you deal to target by 10%



Consistency favors Bioblaster's current wording, though it is odd that there is a single example that includes "to". I was surprised when I found it.


Disclaimer: This information was pulled from the job action list on the lodestone website. I haven't personally checked to see if the in-game strings match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

We're talking about "damage you deal target", not "damage dealt target by you". The latter is missing a "to"; the former is not.

---

They're identical. I chose that particular wording because it can double as a nominalization and thus didn't feel awkward there, but by the same sense that you can shade "deal" as "give", "damage dealt target by you" is just as 'grammatical' (though only through use of the above construct) as "damage you deal target".

I don't have any horse in this race. It just seems odd to call someone out for having a mistaken notion of grammar when their understanding of the words in question is actually fine; there merely exists a special, vaguely "accepted" (not "prescriptive") case by which it's possible to omit the preposition despite the word itself being monotransitive (because you're treating it as an entirely different word).