Talk:Star Burst

I have some trouble believing this skill's newly-added description. - Evil_Greven 13:29, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Yum http://www.starburst.com/ Skuld  09:22, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

Pay As You Go
I really like these "installment-plan" skills, where you only pay extra energy if you actually get an extra effect. As a side note, it seems pretty clearly inspired by some Magic: The Gathering cards and rules (in this case, Kicker and the like). Amusing to see the links. --JoDiamonds 04:48, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Interesting that this is an Elite Spell, Where as almost all touch based skills/spells are skills, and thus not interruptable by some mesmer skills and are reduced by the ranger's expertise. Any verification on this? --GTPoompt 02:44, 11 April 2006 (CST)

Its 5 energy, i dont think I could care less if it would end up at 3 energy with 12 expertice, but I agree it would be interresting if it had a somewhat higher energy cost, or if it was a better elite.. Is there like any use for this? I would say Shockwave owns it pretty bad..

Energy Loss
Is it worth noting that the extra 5 energy lost will not send you into negative energy. So for instance, if you have 5 energy and you use this and hit 2 people, you will only go down to 0 energy. Actually, I have not verified this, but all other "lose energy" skills are this way, so I see no reason why this should be different.--Theonemephisto 20:42, 25 May 2006 (EST)

On the 'not going into negatives' part
Uh.. if you have 6 adjacent (to eachother) foes infront of you, are on 5 energy and use this skill, it will hit them all and you will have 0 energy remaining, regenerating at a normal rate.

This skill is awesome as a finisher (or when you're low on energy) - Shteve


 * I've been using this skill on my warrior as a finisher move, and it's incredibly useful since warriors have such little energy. Pay as you go! Kessel 12:39, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Someone changed the picture to flare :(
I don't know how to change it back, and can't be bothered to. Just pointed this out so someone should change it back. (edit this when it has been)
 * The article hasn't been edited for ten days and it currently shows the correct image for me. --68.142.14.84 09:23, 29 June 2006 (CDT)