Talk:Game updates/Archive9

Click here to update the main article's includes.

Apologies for messing the update around, thought i was formatting but seems someone has beaten me too it, ill check it tomorrow and make sure its the same as previously done large update. --Delphi 11:57, 29th Sep 2005 (GMT)
 * Much still needs to be added about the patch change. There is no information about the changes in Tomb of Primeval Kings or about the sky decor within those 3 locations.  --68.226.60.106 19:33, 28 October 2005 (EST)

is there a way to refresh the page other than changing a date in the TOC and changing it back? - JRR
 * Clicking edit and then saving without changing anything will update includes. Alteratively, you can add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL for the article.  --Fyren 15:34, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)

Good work, I think there should be a link to this from the Main Page! Also, I had some discussion with my guild mates about whether those new quests really are in ascalon. We couldn't seem to find them. - LordBiro

To head length-creep off at the pass, this has been broken up into individual update articles. This a) keeps the main article length down (as it will undoubtably grow over the years) and b) keeps the discussion-tabs focused. I pretty much arbitrarily decided the naming format should be Update:  BUT it also makes sense if we just number it Update: and then the actual # of the update (so May 11 update becomes Update:00001). Anyone have a good argument for changing it? The time to do so would be NOW while there's just a few pages to move and clear. Nunix


 * No need whatsoever; the game doesn't identify them that way, so neither should we. The only other valid format I can think of would be build numbers, but that's just about as tedious, and pretty much useless to anyone (besides maybe the developers themselves).


 * Actually, now that I think about it, it might be neat to include the build number on the update page itself. &mdash;Tanaric 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Perhaps this should be a category, instead? I think that makes better sense than doing the manaul listing of the game updates. Kathryn Maulhammer
 * Ok, categorised. One problem that I hadn't forseen is that it's sorted oldest->newest. Can that be changed? --Kathryn Maulhammer 17:17, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I don't believe so, unless you want to establish a new time system. Maybe we could do an inverted Unix time -- count the number of seconds until 1/1/2070? :)


 * In all seriousness, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Updates aren't coming every hour, so the overhead of manual listing is pretty slim, and since we're manually copying the update here anyway, it doesn't take much to add a line to the index each time. &mdash;Tanaric 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Hadn't seen your post there Tanaric, I think my browser window was too small :P I agree, I think it was fine before categorization. Yes categories are useful when there is an unknown or complex structure or when the frequency of updates is such that a list could never be maintained. As this page is now I think categories are wholly unnecessary. Anyway, I've altered the design slightly to include the last 3 updates on the page itself. 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (EST)

Update Format
A couple ideas for updates format:


 * 1) Archiving old months; I implemented it, see what you think.
 * 2) A small (discuss this update) link on each update page, pointing to that update's talk page, so that a person can access the talk page without clicking through to the update's main page.
 * 3) Removal of the update main page links from the top of the page, as they are completely unnecessary (small edit links on each section allow editing the update pages, and the TOC shows you what updates occurred recently anyway).

&mdash;Tanaric 18:35, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

FUTURE Updates
Should we add a section about FUTURE updates here? I don't mean to start a rumor mill (although on second thought we might even do that). I'm thinking about collecting everything that has been officially confirmed by ANet in press releases, on official websites or in interviews. I'm thinking short term future updates, for example this one and this one about the changes to come next weekend. Mid term we might cover the Summer 2005 Update (the summer is almost over, right?) and long term the Expansion. --Tetris L 15:58, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Opposed. My defintion of Game Updates is: a list of "updates" done to the "game." :) Has nothing to do with speculation/expectation. Now, I think what you are suggesting is valuable and it could fall under the "Category:Game Updates" but is should be in a separate place, like "Articles" or "Previews" or something. --Karlos 16:46, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Not really opposed. :) Sure, this is the updates page, but that doesn't imply they have to be already done.. the page is about game updates, so if we know there's gonna be a future one, may as well collect info on that here, too, right? --Midk 19:35, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * MY definition of Update doesn't say anything about whether they are past or future updates. And I don't have a problem with writing about future updates as long as we refrain from speculation and stick to the things that are confirmed by ANet. Oh ... and we could include what the Frog said. --Tetris L 18:53, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Totally opposed to the Frog bit. How would we know? Some guy posts an article in the updates promising that ANet will remove the monk profession altogher. You ask him his source and he says: A frog told me! :) Are you supposed to believe him? :) If we will be putting future updates, then it will certainly be links to interviews and press releases by ANet, not conversations with a FROG. :) --Karlos 19:19, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)

This old discussion is particularly relevant now that we've been given a future update directly from ANet (in a form that might actually be exactly what the patch notes will be). Koyashi has gone through the skills and changed them to reflect the future changes. I think that shouldn't have been done since our articles intentionally don't match the actual game for those skills at this moment. I don't know if it's worth noting in the skill articles what future changes may be (in this case, such a section would have a lifetime of maybe a week). I think something like Game updates/Future]] might be good. --68.142.14.76 21:41, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Agree. - 23:07, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't revert Koyashi's changes though. Just institute a "policy" for future updates. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:13, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not going to revert Koyashi's changes. However, if anyone else does revert, I ask everyone to NOT re-revert.  Please, instead, to just add a note to the article saying "within 10 days from blah, this skill will be changed in this manner". - 23:21, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The reversions will happen. It's just a matter of when Karlos logs on. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:22, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I will not object to reverting my changes, but in my defence, the planned updates page clearly state that these changes "will be incorporated into the game in the next 10 days". I read it as the skill updates have been finalized, but not yet rolled out. When the updates happen in 10 days, I will definitely compare to the actual update and correct any discrepancies there might be. Koyashi 10:41, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In defense against your defense, no matter how certain, how set in stone the changes are, even if you use a time machine travel to 10 days later and verify that all the changes will in fact take place, they nonetheless are not the way the current game works. Whether the changes *might* take place vs *will certainly* take place has no bearing on the criticisms directed at this particular incident.  I think it's ok to add a note on the skill articles saying it will be changed to blah, but we should not, for future reference, change the skill's stats to blah before it is actually implemented.  Even if Anet say they are for sure implementing it in the next hour. - 10:46, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, I will not repeat this pre-emptive change for any update in the future. However, the question is what to do about this instance. I am recusing myself from any further edits on these skill articles until the planned update has happened. Koyashi 10:54, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The update has now happened and I have verified the skill pages. The only change required was to Enduring Toxin which received an additional buff to the degen. Koyashi 00:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You just beat me to it PanSola, last minute changes can happen, or new bugs can crop up in the changes, then you'll be stuck editing the skills again to reflect whats actually in the game. I think notes saying that the skill is supposed to be changed is good, then changing the template when it is actually implemented is by far the best way to do it.--Chrono traveller 10:51, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

PvP Extreme Weekend
Hey all.. earlier I began writing a PvP_Extreme_Weekend article, because there seems to be no other info on this around (except digging around the game updates page). I stopped after about 15 minutes, wondering whether it'd be acceptable or not. I don't know if there will be any more of these, and I'm not sure if it's alright to make a page dedicated to an event that happened once.. at first I felt it'd be a good idea, but I began to reconsider... anyways, does anyone feel that it should or should not be done? If it's green-lighted, I get dibs on writing it!!! ;) --Midk 12:28, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I say we should have an article. A ton of people were logging in late Thrusday early Friday asking: "So, what' this PvPX thing?" So, I guess we should have an article explaning what it is (pretty soon will be "was"). We could mention in the PvP entry that at times the developers of Guild Wars will increase the rewards of the PvP system as they "did" in PvP Extreme. So, go for it! --Karlos 17:18, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * That's cool. :) I had only written a paragraph or so, but I was referring to the weekend in past-tense, while also trying to keep it categorized in a way, to "add" dates (weekends) later on if/when these events are held again... anyways, I'll begin work on it now, thanks. :) --Midk 18:29, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)

Long Dash
Do we want to keep the long dash for the article names? The most recent two use a normal dash. --Fyren 20:42, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... "Come again?" :) --Karlos 23:50, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * If we don't have more important problems to discuss, then this Wiki must be in a pretty good state. ;) --Tetris L 23:55, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)

Discussion on the Content of the Updates
FYI, the better place to discuss an individual update is on the talk page for that update itself, since each update has it's own page. --JoDiamonds 09:48, 14 March 2006 (CST)

2006 Feb 10: Anyone have any idea what the exploit was, or details about it in general? I'm just curious if someone had 15k armor in Pre-Searing or something like that! --JoDiamonds 08:46, 14 February 2006 (CST)
 * Basically It was an exploit allowing player to get items into pre searing (not armor). The player would go into an observer match while in pre, click guild hall, have a guildie give them the items, click leave guild hall, and they have max weapons/what have you in pre. --FireFox 08:55, 14 February 2006 (CST)

2006 March 13: What do you think about the Skill Trainer update? I think it takes the motivation out of starting a new Character. My first was a R/Me and now I startet a Me/E, so I can buy any Mesmer-Skill I want. That sounds good, but if I do so I don't get any reward for some Skill Quests in the future and you have less goals to reach, because you can get everything right at the start.


 * I actually like it to a great extent, because it makes replaying through the game with a similar character a new experience. See more discussions here: Talk:Game_updates/20060309. --JoDiamonds 09:47, 14 March 2006 (CST)

(No Longer)Today's Update
There was an update today for which there was no notice posted on the website. --Karlos 16:02, 30 October 2005 (EST)
 * Not that I've noticed. I've had no update today.  --Rainith 16:48, 30 October 2005 (EST)
 * after the big halloween one there was a minor one where the mad kings guards were added (and the collecters?) Skuld &Dagger; 18:37, 30 October 2005 (EST)
 * That's the one I'm talking about. And this is the second time they have done this. They did it in September too. --Karlos 21:24, 30 October 2005 (EST)
 * They've done this many times. --Fyren 07:38, 31 October 2005 (EST)

Did this happene again today? Or is this the 11th's.. curse gmt :D &mdash; Skuld 19:33, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Source?
Where does the information about the updates come from? I've looked all around on the official site and other sites, and I can't find this information anywhere but here. I always get curious when there's a new build, but I have to wait until the next day to find out what changed. --Dinosaur Planet 14:02, 4 March 2006 (CST)
 * The official site has a link on the main page for Game Updates that is where the info comes from. --Rainith 14:04, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Undocumented Changes
Is there a place to write down undocumented changes? Prior to the last update, boss auras didn't display for some people with older video cards, now they show up, at least for me. -- Gordon Ecker 18:38, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * that might be part of the Direct3D thing? Currently the precident is to add a section called "GuildWiki Notes" at the bottom of the update article, and then do whatever you want there d-: -PanSola 18:53, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Undocumented Updates :)
Ok, they just fixed the Hall of Heroes. It was malfunctioning for several hours (the counter after the UW map didn't start), and they finally fixed it. Europe held favor for several hours pro bono. :) Should we document this? There is no mention on their site. --Karlos 03:16, 14 March 2006 (CST)
 * I've been thinking about this myself a few times in the past when I downloaded a new EXE (my firewall gives me a warning every time it happens, so I know), but no update description was given on GW.com. I noticed that the GW version number is displayed somewhere in the options menu. We might note this for every update, and check it for undocumented updates. -- 18:21, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * Today we had such a case. I've created an article under Game updates/20060323-2. Please discuss if you want to add it to the update list. -- 18:28, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Post-Factions release update
I think there's been at least one "silent" update since the release of Factions. I don't know if the actual GW client was updated and all, or if they were just streamed, but during Monday, the Alliance feature started working, and I just recently received word of the bug involving Amber having been fixed. I'm unsure if these updates were just one, or two separate ones. I haven't added anything myself though, as I was unsure both of if the page is only supposed to list build updates, or also streamed ones. -- 213.113.67.150 15:39, 1 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Only updates with update notes shoulod have their own pages. Streamed unannounced updates are noted as GuildWiki notes in the same days update page, --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:41, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Last update mess up going to The Black Curtain?
When I went from Bergen/Nebo to Cursed Lands, and then traveled west across the Cursed Lands to zone into The Black Curtain, guess what... it zoned me back to Nebo Terrace, as if I had stepped through the same portal that I had come in from. That was a complete waste of time. Does anyone know if this is an issue with the latest update or was it just some random goof?


 * I have noticed the same thing happening occasionally in Arborstone/Tanglewood Copse, even before last update. Me and my sister solved it through both running at portal, and keep running while loading until you can see yourself on the screen again. Then we made a correct zoning. Odd, but it worked. So, my guess is it's a global bug that appears occasionally -- Stylva 05:39, 5 July 2006 (CDT)

Festival Games
Anyone know if the latest update has removed the Festival Games.

Incorrectly modified shelds? (13-07-06 and 14-07-06 updates)
Does anyone know what was wrong with yesterday's shields? Also, it seems odd that an update with such a small list of changes weighed in at about a meg and a half, I suspect they're starting to stream over something. -- Gordon Ecker 03:22, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

Celestial skills on henches
Does anyone know when they added celestial skills to the henches in Raisu Palace and Imperial Sanctum? What about Shiro's knockdown immunity? -- Gordon Ecker 01:28, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * As far as I know, they've always had them. They just use them upon their first encounter.--&mdash;  xis10al  [[Image:Xis10al_sig_icon.jpg]] 03:20, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

Trap damage display bug
The damage and healing no longer appears for traps (with the exception of Dust Trap). Does anyone know how long this has been going on? -- Gordon Ecker 01:31, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It's been in list of skill anomalies since the end of May, at least. --68.142.14.19 03:54, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

July 25 Update
I picked up on some forum posts that this update changed chests so that they were no longer selectable once used. This may be used by the player or the entire party. Can anyone verify? Jeremy Winston 13:01, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The change was made earlier. I wasn't able to select used chests a day or two ago. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It's been a while since I've been chest hunting, but when I opened one this morning I could no longer select the chest afterwards.--Sykoone 13:05, 26 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)