Talk:Game updates/20060726

They've added a new button on the character selection screen for the "Guild Wars Official Store." I'm getting an error when I press it, so it's more than likely not completely up yet.--Sykoone 12:01, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it's just overwhelmed by people clicking on it. After all, why would they release something that that's not finish to the public? &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|20px|My Talk Page :o]] 12:38, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I really hope this will mean buying character slots once it's working *crosses fingers* --24.250.248.144 12:42, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

ZOMG FP!!! Guildwars.com transcribes only please.. &mdash; Skuld 12:40, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * What an Idiot-Policy is that? Why can't the wiki be ahead of the official site? And btw: It's confirmed by the german community coordinator that this store (in the update which you deny to exist) makes Keys for GuildWars Campaigns and Character Slots available. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si Tacuisses (talk &bull; contribs) 12:47, 26 July 2006 (CDT).
 * didn't we have this discussion a few days ago? weren't we going to put a page noting visable changes even if there wasn't a gw.com note? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:49, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Discussion or not: It's pure idiocy to deny the existence of obviously visible and officially confirmed changes that came with an update. Si Tacuisses 12:52, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Though the heat in here is unbearable, I will say that if anyone ever read the Gaile Gray posts in Dev Tracker on gurus, she states that while ANet strives to put everything in their updates, they don't always put every minor thing in them, or create an update for something minor as well. Mind you, I am referring from memory, so the wording is not verbatim. And, yes, Guildwiki should supply users with "unofficial" updates. It's been going on now for some time with the GuildWiki Notes section at the bottom of official updates. 300-400 files don't just download for no reason ;) -Gares 13:13, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * No-one has denied an update. I'm going with what we always do, which, frankly is more reasonable than all your flaming and lack of reason &mdash; Skuld 13:17, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I simply followed what I believed to have been the guidelines for documenting changes in the client. I put the Notes heading above my information, so it was clear that it was not an officially listed update as of yet. But considering the sheer number of people that will be looking for information about the store, I felt it necessary to put something on here to show that we're paying attention.--Sykoone 13:20, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * As someone pointed out in yesterday's update talk page (or the day before), there's precedent at Game updates/20060502. --68.142.14.19 13:22, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * User:Sykoone, you did the right thing. To me, the heat in this discussion doesn't seem to be about the update as User:68.142.14.19 pointed out, these unoffical updates have been going on at least since May. -Gares 13:32, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Skuld's deleting (and has now protected) the article based on the reasoning that we don't make an update article without GW.com notes. The link provided is a counterexample.  --68.142.14.19 13:34, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Huh? I'm not aware that GuildWiki has any such policy. Undocumented updates have been discussed briefly in the past, and it has been generally agreed to that we do list such updates. See Talk:Game updates and Talk:Game updates. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]]  13:36, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I meant that it seemed to be his reasoning, not that it was (or wasn't) also the wiki's. --68.142.14.19 13:39, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

I can't take a more active part in this atm,. The page has been recreated 4 times, protection seemed the best thing &mdash; Skuld 13:37, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * As long as there is either patch info on the official site, or observable and confirmable changes that can be positively attributed to the specific update, then I believe that it's reasonable to create these articles. I am against creating them just as a place holder if neither of the above exists.
 * In this case, there is an observable change, so it should be documented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:40, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

And now it's gone. Do we document a change that was immediately reverted? --68.142.14.19 14:15, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps to avoid further disruption with problems like this, it should be stated more clearly on the main page the "rules of creating new articles for game updates". The easiest solution would be to make the How_to_help link more clear with the information it contains (by that I mean stand out more, bold font colour etc) and inside that link How_to_help, add a section for these rules or guidelines if you like, for creating new game update articles. If there already is such information (because I haven't looked) then it needs to again be made more clear for Guild Wiki users. They're only thoughts and suggestions but it may help prevent such disputes happening in the future.
 * --=¦¦|| Saintly ||¦¦=-- 14:22, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * We shouldn't document chnages that are immediagely reverted. However, as the day is not over yet, it will be better to keep the note there, and only delete the article once the day is over and there is no net-change. - 15:46, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * For reference, the controversial button update was documented on wiki 2 hours before it disappeared. And I believe below, User:Wil has posted the explanation why it was removed. -Gares 16:19, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Deleting per above --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:19, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

On Another Note ...
I have logged on twice today, both times I received game updates. The update this morning was a smaller file, just a few KB and an approximate 1MB of files to decompress later on today. You could just say that they are adding updates for the new PvP event, but the funny thing is I haven't had any updates streamed to me :S. This doesn't seem to suggest the PvP event as not many files have been updated today! Any observational changes other than the new store thing? --=¦¦|| Saintly ||¦¦=-- 14:47, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The store link has been removed. Someone who can should note that. --Wil 15:06, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * If the store link has been removed, then the net result of today's update is, well, nothing identifiable. If that's the case, then I fully support deleting this update article (an article that says: an update took place, but we have no idea why it took place is not a useful article). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * and it might be back again in a few hours, or not. I'm going to unprotect the page, so contributors can keep the GuildWiki notes section edited.  - 15:37, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * There's a note from Gaile Gray on guildwarsguru front page: "Back with an update: We've closed access to the store while we do a little tweaking. No ETA on the official opening, but I'd say "soon" is a pretty good estimate." --Wil 15:59, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Link To Guru. So basically there was an update yesterday that added a Guild Wars Store, and it was later removed in a second update, due to incompletion, too much access from players and finalisation! To the right is an image that you should find intersting, also taken from Guru. Cheers for deleting this article! --=¦¦|| Saintly ||¦¦=-- 09:23, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Net results of the two updates, no current identifiable change in-game. When the update comes that adds the store again, that update will be created to show the store being added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:54, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

2006 July 26 Updates
There were two patches rolled out on the 26th. Neither of these are mentioned on guildwars.com, and may never be. If the goal of this project is to be a historical reference of all the patches, these should be documented. During and after these patches hit, an anonymous user added his/her observations along with an "unconfirmed by a.net" disclaimer. These changes were reverted.

I do not agree with this revert, as it contradicts the established convention of adding "Guildwiki notes" to updates, which are themseleves unconfirmed observations. I was logged on when both patches hit; what follows is my personal experience yesterday.

The first patch added only one visible change: a link which stated it was to the "Official Guild Wars Store", or something of that nature. This link took the form of a graphic and a clickable button overlayed onto the character select screen. I clicked the link a few times, and each click was followed by a short delay and then an error message. The error said something to the effect of "something is wrong, try again later".

The second patch hit later that afternoon (local time is currently GMT - 5). I believe it at least an hour later. However, I am not sure of the exact time. The only change I noticed after the second patch was the removal of the graphic and link to the "Guild Wars Store". As for the purpose of this patch, I believe it was simply a rollback to the previous state. The "store" did not seem to be working correctly.

I believe this info should be added for historical and educational purposes. Players reading an informational site (such as this one) should be able to get an accurate expectation of what to expect when a patch hits, independent of a.net and NCSoft. Nearly all of them go off without a hitch, but some do not. Hiding "bad" updates does not make Guildwiki better.

If you were also online during this time, please add your own experience with this patch. I know there are details I have forgotten, and verification is always a good thing. Johan 17:53, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The primary purpose of the updates screen is to log the official update notes. The secondary purpose is to log Guildwiki observations of undocumented changes that impacted the game.
 * The net result of the changes cited were no remaining observable changes. Yes, there was a brief period when an observable change was inserted, but it was then removed.  It serves no purpose to log it here, as it has no impact on the game other than a barely working link that is currently not available.  When the link is restored, it will be documented in the updates section at that time.
 * As for calling it a "bad" patch, I'm yet to hear of anyone being adversely affected. A "bad" patch would be like the one pre-Factions that reset rune prices and resulted in a full rollback of the environment to pre-patch settings.  Nothing like that took place here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Then perhaps it should be put as a GuildWiki note under that date? --- Esteroth12 18:41, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * It was a guildwiki note originally. However, saving it in the wiki is not usefull to anyone. I think deleting it was ok. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The purpose of this website is to make available facts and information about the computer game Guild Wars. The updates that took place on Jul 26 fall into this category.  Because of this, these facts should be included.  I made the case for this in my original post.


 * You bring up several important points. However, none of these actually address my post.  Worse, they are not logically sound.


 * You claim that one of the purposes of these update pages is to supplement the official patch notes, so we shouldn't write any notes if there isn't an "official" patch that the notes correspond to. This does not make logical sense.  The update pages are one of two things: either they are a copy-and-paste text dump, or they are a community effort to document changes to the game.  They are not simply a text dump.


 * You then claim that this patch should not be included because the end result was "no observable change", and that "it has no impact on the game". If this was the measure used to determine what data is included in Guildwiki, the updates section would not exist.  Old patches are "unobservable" and "have no impact on the game".  So by your reasoning, they "serve no purpose" and should be deleted.


 * Finally, you claim that since this patch doesn't fit your definition of "bad", it shouldn't be called that and shouldn't be included. You back this up by linking to an arbitrary patch that matches your definition.  This does not make sense.  Having an example that matches your definition of something does not mean your definition is correct.  Your argument here is simply an appeal to emotion (OMG rune prices!).


 * Worst of all, you completely fail to address my point. Unless you can rectify this, there have been no legitimate objections to my points.  It follows that, by my reasoning, this data should be put on a page for all to see. Johan 02:01, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I did address your point. Twisting my statements does not change that.
 * A) You state "so we shouldn't write any notes if there isn't an "official" patch that the notes correspond to" - to which I say Bwahuh?!? Misrepresenting my statements does not help your case.
 * B) You state "Old patches are "unobservable" and "have no impact on the game". So by your reasoning, they "serve no purpose" and should be deleted." Again, twisting my words to serve your purpose.  Old notes do serve a purpose, to document when something that is in the game was changed.
 * C) A "bad" patch would have an adverse effect. This one did not.  You failed to show how anyone was adversely affected.  Status: no impact on the game.
 * D) You ignore my reply directly to your point: "The net result of the changes cited were no remaining observable changes. Yes, there was a brief period when an observable change was inserted, but it was then removed.  It serves no purpose to log it here, as it has no impact on the game other than a barely working link that is currently not available.  When the link is restored, it will be documented in the updates section at that time."  The fact that you misrepresent my statement does not invalidate it.
 * I stand by my statement. If it had a negative impact, I could see it.  If it changed game play, I could see it.  As the changes occured within one-two hours of each other, there is no precedent nor reason to document this change.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:42, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Just my 2 cents- on first thought, it seems like this sort of thing should be archived as a note to keep in mind for possible future ANet moves. But, upon reflection, it's something ANet hasn't confirmed. We could create a scenario where many people show up here and read about, say as a pure example, a non-functional and immediately retracted feature that would allow one to recustomize their character for 99 cents. Then, in two months, this feature is not in-game, or it's more expensive. Then you've got a lot of people annoyed at something that wasn't officially stated, and they wouldn't have heard about except for us (or whatever sites post the information). Officially, we're not a rumor-mongering site (as far as I know :p). It seems most prudent to leave this out, as the net change was zero.

Perhaps we should have a "rumors and speculation" page for this sort of thing, if we really want to handle that particular nest of snakes.&mdash;Aranth 00:59, 28 July 2006 (CDT)


 * If we only include data that a.net has confirmed, over 99% of this website would not exist. To confirm all the data here would require contacting a.net to confirm if it is accurate.  This means every piece of data, including things like quest names, spell characteristics, and how to use dye.


 * But wait. This data can be found in the game, so why would we need to contact a.net?  It would be ridiculous to navigate the game help system to find out that Sprint costs 5 energy, because you can see it right in front of you.


 * This is exactly my point. These changes happened, and they were observable.  Therefore, they should be included.


 * If we do not include "unconfirmed by a.net" data, we would have no data. Additionally, what if phantom patches like this become common?  Hiding this fact would be a huge disservice to people, as they would not get an accurate picture of what playing this game is like.  If, say, a third of the patches consist of buggy features that get pulled an hour later, people should know these things. Johan 02:01, 28 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally, I consider permanent implementation in the game of a feature as confirmation. But that's just me. And... yeah, if a third of these patches were like this, people should know. But they're not.&mdash;Aranth 02:11, 28 July 2006 (CDT)