Talk:Game updates/20060609

It's the 10th, page lists as 9th and GW.com lists as 8th.. I see &mdash; Skuld  00:08, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In ANet's time zone it is the 9th, I know, I'm ~15 miles from them. --Rainith 00:11, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

aura
Aura as in those boss glows? - 00:44, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The team color aura. It's kind of like the boss aura but not as bright.  Various PvP NPCs already had it.  --68.142.14.91 01:05, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * They all got it a while ago, then they removed it and now its back again :s &mdash; Skuld  01:39, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * So maybe tomorrow they'll be gone again o_O" - 01:41, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * There was that update a while back that conflicted with an nvidia driver update that gave a lot of the NPCs auras, maybe this is something similar? --Rainith 01:50, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Exact text
We've been using the exact text for a while, Karlos. Look through the old game updates and see how many times links are piped to link ANet's (often just plain wrong) text/names to the correct names/our articles. If ANet never fixes their date, then in a couple weeks once everyone forgets, it'll actually make us "look stupid." --68.142.14.91 01:09, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I fail to understand why even a SIC is unacceptable to Kar. - 02:10, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No, no, no. I know what we've been using and what we've not been using, Mr.Anonymous. This is the listing of the date on OUR site, this is not a verbatim listing of text from their site, this is how the update will be archived and viewed on OUR site. This has nothing to do with them misspelling the name of a collector or a monster or whatever. Apples and oranges. In fact, I would not mind us using the correct spelling in those cases too, but this is not about copying the update text verbatim. This is the indexing of the update on OUR site. --Karlos 02:11, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Indexing is done by article name, which uses 9th, so we are doing fine on that front. - 02:13, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * reference: Category:Game Updates - it's indexed as "Game updates/20060609" regardless of the how the date is shown in the first line of text within the article. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 02:14, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * * laugh* C'mon Karlos, if this was about the indexing, we would have moved this article back and forth over redirects half a dozen times by now. The section heading (which is what it is) has nothing to do with the indexing.  But I'm very tired now so whatever.  =)  --Rainith 02:17, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * C'mon, KarKar. The 8th!  The 8th!  --68.142.14.63 02:20, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, we're already failing to copy the date exactly as ArenaNet posts it. They list it as "Update - Friday June 8", while we show it as "Update – Friday, June 9th, 2006" (regardless of us showing 8th or 9th, we're already formatting slightly differently than ArenaNet). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 02:19, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is weird. The date in the heading indexes the entry in the main Game updates article. Doesn't it? I know the article title is used in the category, but the section heading is what's listed in the main article that readers use.
 * This is not "website text" or "update text" we are copying, this is the date the update took place. If ANet told you the update happened last month, you'd list it like that? Just like with Weapon names and boss names. When Gorgnar's sword dropped from Grognard (or the other way around) we named each thing as it was named and then put notes. If the update happened on June 9th then we say it happened on June 9th and then point out the discrepancy in the notes. To list the update in the wrong date, and then put a note that it's actually in the wrong date is ridiculous to me. --Karlos 02:24, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Like I said, I'm tired, but I think you're mixing up the  ==Header Text==  with the  .
 * And with Barek's exception of changing - to &mdash; it is a straight copy of the text that is on the offial site. --Rainith 02:30, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, it's more than the hyphen. It's actually the item that has caused me to cross over to Karlos' view (I was originally for keeping the given date).
 * Arenanet format: "Update - Friday June 8"
 * GuildWiki format: "Update – Friday, June 9th, 2006"
 * It's minor, but we add punctuation, year, and the "th". Changing it to the correct date isn't much further to go at that point. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 02:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * After getting some sleep I see that you are correct. I withdraw my objection.  :)  --Rainith 13:22, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Resurrection Skills
Thank god! :P -- Markild 10:02, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Indeed. Has anyone tested yet? I failed to get more than one dead henchman during a Mineral Springs trip so can't say anything yet. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I was in the middle of a mission last night when the update happened (you know when you get the message to log out 'cause there is a new build available). As soon as that happened the ritualist henches stopped raising any of the other henches (it was a full hench party).  Both monk henches died and the ritualists didn't do anything (I waited a while to make sure that it wasn't just that their energy was low).  Then a little while later I died, and after the area was cleared of enemies, the ritualists ran back to the monks that were way off screen at that point and raised them.  They then came back and raised me.  Strangest thing I'd ever seen, I hope that I don't see it again.  --Rainith 13:38, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it's just that you hadn't updated yet. Or actually, I just hope so, I don't think your client has any control over the henchmen. :( --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:41, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * My guess is that there was a conflict between the new data from the serers and the info in the client for the behavior. Before then I had never had a problem, one or both monk hench die, the ritualist(s) raise them.  Usually if one person died the ritualist and the monk would both start casting spells to raise them, I think this update was trying to do away with that (at least in part) and that is where the 'confusion' for the AI came from.  Anyway all just a guess, as I have no insight into ANet's AI coding practices.  :)  --Rainith 13:52, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll try to test this whenever I go out with henchmen (Every day, I ahte playing with ppl other than a few selected), so except for results pretty soon. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 14:45, 10 June 2006 (CDT)